To halo or not to halo?

[mysecretdiary]

I have been a secret stalker on price scope for months.. What a lovely community we have here! Here's my question, which I hope to have some opinions on:

My e-ring is a 0.55 solitaire. It was a surprise proposal (bless his heart).

Here is how it looks on my hand:




I have always preferred a ring with more detailing, and am seriously considering a reset. Either into a halo style or adding a pave on the bands. My fiancé is completely ok with resetting. I intend to reset it before the wedding so it will be the one I get married in and will be in the pictures.

Halo:
1. I like the greater finger coverage it offers for my stone size. I intend the ring to be my forever ring once reset for sentimental reasons so won't be upgrading in the future. hence the halo appears to be the way I can get the coverage I want without upgrading.
2. It seems like a more complicated design and I'm concerned that there is higher chance of the jeweler not delivering what i intend the ring to be. I want a delicate halo, but not sure if that's difficult due to my relative small stone size. Here's what I have in mind:




(Credits of pics to owner)
3. I like the vintage vibe of this, but also wondering if it is a timeless enough design.

Solitaire with pave bands:
1. I actually prefer this design for it's cleaner look, while having the bling of the pave side bands.
2. However it will not give me as much finger coverage unlike the halo, since I intend to never upgrade my stone due to sentimentality reasons.

Your thoughts please (: thank you!

 

[mysecretdiary]

This is my first time posting and I'm not too sure why the images aren't appearing! I uploaded them from my phone

 

[mysecretdiary]

 

[lioness]

Solitaire with pave bands:
1. I actually prefer this design for it's cleaner look, while having the bling of the pave side bands.
2. However it will not give me as much finger coverage unlike the halo, since I intend to never upgrade my stone due to sentimentality reasons. I'm not sure if this will bother me in the future when I prefer a bigger stone as I grow older.

Your thoughts please (: thank you!

Hmmm, I'm confused. It seems like you'll want to upgrade in the future. Should we explore that before you and your fiance invest in a new setting?

 

[mysecretdiary]

Solitaire with pave bands:
1. I actually prefer this design for it's cleaner look, while having the bling of the pave side bands.
2. However it will not give me as much finger coverage unlike the halo, since I intend to never upgrade my stone due to sentimentality reasons. I'm not sure if this will bother me in the future when I prefer a bigger stone as I grow older.

Your thoughts please (: thank you!

Sorry that I confused you! (: What I meant is that I do not want to upgrade in the future. But at the same time I do want a ring with more coverage/ finger presence. Hence I am seriously considering the halo, as it allows me to have greater finger coverage with my existing stone (:

 

[arkieb1]

I think you answered your own question if you are not going to upgrade and you want more finger coverage then either a halo or a 3 stone will give you that.

 

[ringbuyer7]

The halo will look great!

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

For a smaller RB I much prefer a three stone with pear side stones than a halo. That to me is a very timeless and class look which gives a lot of finger coverage.

 

[Sunstorm]

Halos are beautiful and classic, timeless in my opinion. The one you posted does not really have a vintage vibe, it is a more modern halo. It is not a bad example at all but the halo could be better executed with less metal showing with less space between the melee, it requires a lot of skill and an excellent goldsmith to execute one really well. I would also like to see less bulky prongs on the center stone, claws instead of balls. I think it is a great idea to halo your stone. Who knows if you upgrade or not, many do but many also keep their original ring; the point is that you should have something that you can enjoy now and for years to come. Do ensure that the melee used is not larger than 1-1.2 mm (though extreme skill would be required to do 1.2-s and have a delicate look with almost no metal) at the very most, otherwise the design will not be pretty as it will look really out of proportion.

 

[Niel]

Your ring is lovely on your hand. Congratulations!

I wouldn't not halo that stone, myself... I understand you want a larger diamond. But you won't upgrade in the future, and sadly (for all of us) a halo is not a larger diamond. In the long run I think you will still feel like you need more "bling"
I would do a 3 stone or a 5 stone. Your fingers are smaller, so probabaly 3. If you kept the side stones large, it will create quite the blinged out look, and being that the stones are larger, they will IMHO, keep you happy for longer.
I wouldn't pave that ring. I'd get as big of round side stones as you can afford (of course no bigger than your center) and then but a great pave band for your wedding set if afterwords you still need that extra pop of sparkle.

I, like you, like bigger diamonds than my pocketbook does. I had a halo and I've had a multi diamond ring. The halo creates more initial finger coverage around the center stone, true, but I find a multi stone ring with larger stones has more of an impact.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I've had, or currently have, a solitaire, a three stone, a five stone, and a halo. My five stone center has a 5.3mm spread, so that may be the most similar to your stone. To be fair, the center in the three stone is smaller than my halo, though not by much. My husband thinks the three stone has the most presence; I'm up in the air on that but am definitely enjoying the halo at the moment!

Congratulations on your engagement!

 

[TC1987]

Three stone with bezels like this JBEG Astin might be another idea. Erica Winters might still be offering these rings. I haven't looked lately. Erica & Grace split into two separate businesses.

 

[mysecretdiary]

Halos are beautiful and classic, timeless in my opinion. The one you posted does not really have a vintage vibe, it is a more modern halo. It is not a bad example at all but the halo could be better executed with less metal showing with less space between the melee, it requires a lot of skill and an excellent goldsmith to execute one really well. I would also like to see less bulky prongs on the center stone, claws instead of balls. I think it is a great idea to halo your stone. Who knows if you upgrade or not, many do but many also keep their original ring; the point is that you should have something that you can enjoy now and for years to come. Do ensure that the melee used is not larger than 1-1.2 mm (though extreme skill would be required to do 1.2-s and have a delicate look with almost no metal) at the very most, otherwise the design will not be pretty as it will look really out of proportion.

Thanks for your reply! My concerns are similar to what you highlighted regarding the importance if finding someone skilled to do it.. And you raised many points I didn't consider such as the claws not looking like balls! Regarding the recommended size of melee, you recommended no larger than 1-1.2 mm. Would that translate to roughly a 1 pointer/0.01 carat? Also I suppose this will be set using the "pave" method?

 

[msop04]

Three stone with bezels like this JBEG Astin might be another idea. Erica Winters might still be offering these rings. I haven't looked lately. Erica & Grace split into two separate businesses.

I love this! It's a nice way to add a little bit of diameter AND get a clean three stone look...

Here's the link:
http://www.loveaffairdiamonds.com/the-astin-3-stone-setting/

 

[Lizabeth]

What do you call that detailing -- a diamondless halo around each diamond -- on the three-stone ring pictured above? Is that milgrain? Would that work as an alternative to a diamond halo to give the single diamond more heft/presence?

 

[msop04]

What do you call that detailing -- a diamondless halo around each diamond -- on the three-stone ring pictured above? Is that milgrain? Would that work as an alternative to a diamond halo to give the single diamond more heft/presence?

The metal encasing the stones (the "diamondless halo") is called a bezel, and the milgrain detail describes the little beaded edge added to the bezel.

Yes, it will add a little more coverage -- not as much as a diamond halo, of course, but certainly more than a prong setting. The bezeled three stone also separates the stones a little more than prong set and I feel this draws more attention to each individual stone and provides even more coverage. Bezel settings also protect the diamond's girdle more than other settings.

 

[AprilBaby]

Go for the halo! , you will love it!

 

[Sunstorm]

I think it is a matter of preference and of course money whether to do a three-stone, a five-stone or a halo. I personally used to not be so crazy about three-stones but the three stone above is just stunning and have seen some other gorgeous ones here on PS. I have always liked the look of five-stones. That said my style is one larger center stone and I love the style and look halos and micropave create. Spending on five half caraters (or even if the other four are smaller) can also be a lot more expensive than a halo with or without pave on the shank. Also, some people really do like to keep their center stone in a centerstage position, your fiancee may also not want other diamonds to compete with what he bought or he may not be able to finance a three or a five stone now, that is something that could be discussed between you two. You can create a halo, brightcut pave with milgrain added though I prefer it without again to create a look that showcases the diamonds and not the metal. While the milgrain bezel set posted is gorgeous, I would personally not bezel a true ideal cut or other great quality diamond, light performance will be affected. With less than ideal stones, it can work but I would not normally recommended on top diamonds. Keep us posted OP about what you decide to do. Either way you will have a gorgeous ring and congrats on your engagement!

Ah and OP I noticed your questions; yes a halo is normally pave work of some kind, yes skill is key for such work; an extremely talented and experienced craftsman is the most important thing to ensure tiny claw prongs, a very tight set for an almost all diamond look and yet secure settings to ensure the stones will not keep falling out, which can happen with pave a lot if the person executing it is not the best. I have personally used 1.2-s on my 30 point centerstone studs but in this case the diamonds are set so tight that the look is very delicate, this size translates to about .008 cts, close to .01 but not quite. To do this well though again skill is key, same stands true if you are using half pointers which are about 1 mm, not easy to set them and you definitely want very tiny prongs so that the tiny diamonds sparkle and show.

 

[msop04]

OP, I'm a little biased, but I love a halo... If you did decide to halo, here are some that would look amazing with your stone!

http://www.beverleyk.com/engagement-rings/halo/r397-a-d-d-m.html <--- my personal fave of the BevK styles!!
http://www.beverleyk.com/engagement-rings/halo/r391-a-d-d-cz.html
http://www.beverleyk.com/engagement-rings/halo/r9424-a-d-d-cz.html same as above, but with diamonds down the shank

http://www.eternitybyyoni.com/engag.../Channel-Set-Halo-Ring-With-Milgrain-526.htm# they also have this with prongs instead of a bezel



Not sure if you wanna keep the round shaped halo, but if you change it up (cushion or octagonal), it adds even more finger coverage -- and it's not your typical "round halo on round diamond" look.

http://www.eternitybyyoni.com/engag...ion-Halo-Ring-With-Round-Center-Stone-528.htm

Your stone would be the PERFECT size to so a double "Soleste" style halo like this:

http://www.eternitybyyoni.com/engag...e-Double-Halo-Ring-With-Fishtail-Pave-524.htm This would be blingaliscious!!

 

[WillyDiamond]

You might want to contract some of the jewelers who are commonly used on this forum for halo work(ERD, VC, SK) and tell them the size of your center stone and get their opinion. This might help you to decide. Best of luck.

 

[CharmyPoo]

What you can do is dependent on your budget ... do you mind sharing that first before we come out with ideas that may not be feasible.

The way I see it ... 3 stone or halo is completely personal preference. I love both but I would rather have a halo as an e-ring than a 3 stone. However, I am totally in love with my 3 stone rings as well.

I wouldn't think too far down the line. You may have decided that in the next 3-5 years that you won't upgrade but a life time is hard to predict.

 

[Gypsy]

This is the setting I recommend. Great quality. Lovely contemporary style. Split shank bright cut halo. http://www.beverleyk.com/engagement-rings/split-shank/r9412-a-d-d-cz.html And $1150 in white gold.

 

[MJ0911]

I like the idea of both a halo (I'm a big fan) and also three stone that people are suggesting. I'm a big fan of the look of the ritani bella vita 3-stone ring (never seen in person and not sure what the craftsmanship is like, but love the combination of halo and side stones).

ETA: here's a thread of someone who has it with a 0.7 centre stone if it helps visualise:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engaged-my-ritani-bella-vita.120533/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engaged-my-ritani-bella-vita.120533/[/URL]

 

[Calliecake]

I like the idea of both a halo (I'm a big fan) and also three stone that people are suggesting. I'm a big fan of the look of the ritani bella vita 3-stone ring (never seen in person and not sure what the craftsmanship is like, but love the combination of halo and side stones).

ETA: here's a thread of someone who has it with a 0.7 centre stone if it helps visualise:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engaged-my-ritani-bella-vita.120533/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engaged-my-ritani-bella-vita.120533/[/URL]

I friend of mine very recently had her diamond set in a similar setting. It looks beautiful on her hand has great finger coverage. I was afraid it was going to look too busy, but was wrong. The ring turned out gorgeous.

If you don't care for the setting above I would recommend haloing your stone. I think you'll be very happy with the finger coverage.

 

[Niel]

This would be hands down my suggestion. However, probabaly over budget so I've been keeping it to myself. But halo, three stone, bezel.... Shoot!
My tapatalk isn't working right now but its the ritani endless love three stone halo. Here's an example of one,but google can find you many

http://www.idonowidont.com/diamonds/ritani-endless-love-ring

 

[jerichosmom]

How about a halo'd 3 stone with pears? I'm considering this for my RB.

 

[Tekate]

not a fan of halos.. I think they are in but may not be and could date your ring.. but if you do a 3 stone with a trellis setting I think that will stand the test of time.. of course I could be wrong!

lovely ring.. you have a wonderful guy...

I have been a secret stalker on price scope for months.. What a lovely community we have here! Here's my question, which I hope to have some opinions on:

My e-ring is a 0.55 solitaire. It was a surprise proposal (bless his heart).

Here is how it looks on my hand:




I have always preferred a ring with more detailing, and am seriously considering a reset. Either into a halo style or adding a pave on the bands. My fiancé is completely ok with resetting. I intend to reset it before the wedding so it will be the one I get married in and will be in the pictures.

Halo:
1. I like the greater finger coverage it offers for my stone size. I intend the ring to be my forever ring once reset for sentimental reasons so won't be upgrading in the future. hence the halo appears to be the way I can get the coverage I want without upgrading.
2. It seems like a more complicated design and I'm concerned that there is higher chance of the jeweler not delivering what i intend the ring to be. I want a delicate halo, but not sure if that's difficult due to my relative small stone size. Here's what I have in mind:




(Credits of pics to owner)
3. I like the vintage vibe of this, but also wondering if it is a timeless enough design.

Solitaire with pave bands:
1. I actually prefer this design for it's cleaner look, while having the bling of the pave side bands.
2. However it will not give me as much finger coverage unlike the halo, since I intend to never upgrade my stone due to sentimentality reasons.

Your thoughts please (: thank you!

 

[motownmama]

I'm not a fan of halos, but I'm also not the one wearing it. Some of the suggestions here are quite expensive - $1000-$2000+
Why not put that money towards a blingy band - or even one on each side? Perhaps one with milgrain to get that detailed look you like.

 

[cflutist]

It all depends on how much you enjoy seeing your center stone. I personally would not halo unless the center stone is at least 1 ct, otherwise it might get lost in all that melee. I like the idea of either a 3-stone with say .25s on each side, or getting a blingy band.

 

[Sunstorm]

I think the three stone with pears is quite nice but again a lot more expensive than just doing a halo, we do not know if OP wants to or can do this, best thing would be if OP chimed in on budget and what options she likes.