Larger diamond vs elaborate setting

[TalldrinkH2o]

I am wondering your thoughts about a larger diamond with a simple setting vs a slightly smaller diamond with an elaborate setting.

The center stone will be a 2-3 ct rectangular cushion 1.1-1.14 l/w ratio
D-G
Vs1-IF
Ex polish
Ex sym
Ring size 5.5

I really want a near perfect stone and don't want to sacrifice any quality to go bigger.

The setting was planned to be custom made with French cuts tapering on each side and some other details. Because the stones will be custom cut etc the setting will cost 5k+ With that setting the center stone would be closer to the 2 ct end

I am now considering just doing a classic simple platinum setting and getting a 2.5 ct- 3 ct stone

1. because I have seen that many designers have stock settings with the French cuts and while it is definitely beautiful it's more common than I initially thought
2. Because I am debating if putting all the money into the main diamond is a better choice

Let me also say that I am very sentimental and that this ring will be my forever ring. I planned either way to do a diamond wedding band.

The face up size difference would end up being for example a 7.8 x 6.9 l/w stone vs 8.4 x 7.5 l/w stone

Is that much of a size difference worth giving up the elaborate setting? I know it's not much but it's definitely a difference on the finger.
Those with elaborate settings- do you get sick of them?


You help and advice is appreciated I've been driving myself and my fiancé nuts for 2 months.

 

[kenny]

This is for you, not for me so it doesn't matter what I like.

But since you asked, I want the best stone I can afford in the least-expensive, and simplest setting.
Spending more on the setting means I could have, but didn't, get a nicer diamond.

If you can't decide you could splurge on the diamond today, but put it in a low-cost setting that you'll upgrade in the future.

 

[FancyIntense]

Hi, I had the same dilemma, I went with a larger stone. You can always get a different setting down the road, but going backwards to get a bigger diamond is more expensive, get the largest stone you can NOW.

Diamonds shrink after you get them, they start to look smaller to you after you finally have them, lol.

In your case, both choices are winners since your smaller stone is already a 2 carat.

That's my two cents

 

[dk168]

Define elaborate please.

For me personally, the most elaborate setting I would go for is a halo with a plain shank and as low and plain a gallery as possible.

I agree with kenny, for the first significant diamond to be set in a simple setting, and spend more money on the diamond to get a better stone. One can always upgrade the setting at a later date.

DK

 

[LLJsmom]

Of course only you would know what you can live with in the end. I can only share my experience.

I too went with a smaller stone with a plain setting. However, I found out after wearing it for a while that I did not like the plain setting at all, for many reasons. One of the main ones was that I discovered that I looked at the side view of my ring WAY more than the top down view, just cause as the wearer, always on the computer, by nature I would see the side view. Took me two years and two settings to figure it out, not to mention the cost. And I discovered that things like the flow of the metal and angles and lines made a difference to me. I am on my third and final setting, I hope!!

And I thought I wanted a halo but I tried for the whole two years to love one that was on my finger but could not. When I finally went to visit Victor Canera I discovered I loved a piece I would never have considered based only on on-line pictures. And I discovered that the bling whore in me meant I gravitated toward seeing bling everywhere. Suffice it to say I went busier and more ornate than what I thought was my style. Mind you my idea of shopping was buying four of the same shirt in different colors when you find one that fits. I am basic and boring. I have sweaters from 10-15 years ago that I still wear.

Not sure what the moral of the story is. Maybe try on tons and tons of rings if you are not sure. Even buy fake CZ rings in different settings for $30 and test drive them for days to figure out what you like and don't like. You might surprise yourself.

 

[missy]

Personally, I would go for the best and biggest diamond I could afford with the simplest platinum setting. You can always upgrade down the line if you wish to a more expensive/elaborate setting.

 

[RandG]

I would go with the bigger diamond and either do a simple mount, or look for a well made elaborate vintage mount and get both. Over the years, I've made many, many mistakes trying to create the perfect setting, only to find they never quite turn out just right or the workmanship is lacking. And you rarely recover the value of a new mount. It doesn't always work but I prefer finding really fine vintage settings. Even mounts that need a little bit of re-engineering are a great value. Here's one with French cut baguettes that cost far less than the cost of cutting new French cuts would today. And an empty five-stone mount I intend to re-purpose at some point, also purchased used. These are out there. You just need a skilled bench jeweler who can make the right adjustments for your stone. Another idea... find old vintage bands with French cut baguettes, remove them, and re-purpose them for your newly made mount. Huge cost savings-- I've done that too. Just a thought...

Good luck-- I hope you get exactly what you want!

 

[arkieb1]

I agree put as much as you can towards the largest stone you can afford, put it into a simple elegant setting that you like..... Then save up for an anniversary or special occasion and buy the setting you love at a later point in time.

 

[mdmc]

I had to make this decision 2 years ago. At first I wanted a halo, but as others have said the more I thought about it I finally decided on a simple solitaire. I do love the look of a solitaire and I could buy a bigger stone that way. I have been very happy. IF I do decide I want a different setting it will be much cheaper than buying a bigger stone.

 

[OoohShiny]

I prefer a simple solitaire setting that lets a single stone shine, but as Kenny has already noted, it's ultimately what you like so go with your gut feeling as if not, you'll always be wishing you did!

 

[endless_summer]

I would go for the highest quality center stone possible, particularly if you're sentimental. Re-setting the stone later for an anniversary or when funds allow also would allow for holding onto the memories that you may find you attach to the stone And, you won't have any regrets about how you could've, would've, should've gone for the stone that was better cut, larger, higher color, or higher clarity (whatever your priority may be) - you'll know that you got the very best stone possible, and along with the sentiment of a forever stone, that's worth a great deal and would be worth a great deal to me.

 

[emmebee]

I'm a solitaire (plus huge rock!) kinda girl, but if my style was more bling/halo/more substantial ring with french cut sidestones, I don't think anything other than a halo/etc. would do the trick.

That being said, definitely consider whether this will be your forever stone. It will be expensive to get the setting done again with a larger/different stone.

Best of luck in your decision!

 

[CRYSTAL24K]

I would put the money into the diamond that you want and a simple setting.

As the other posters have mentioned, you can always look forward to a new setting in the future.

 

[ElleElle]

For me it would be best and biggest stone possible with simple setting. You can always do an elaborate setting down the road!

 

[distracts]

It depends on your preferences. I gain more joy from the setting than the center stone, so I would go for the more elaborate setting. I would be supremely unsatisfied with a 3 ct diamond in a solitaire. I know I'm the odd one out on this though.

While french cuts are findable and "Pricescope common," they are NOT common in real life - I've never seen them on someone and most jewelers I have spoken to have never even HEARD of them. Just because a dozen places online have them doesn't make them even remotely common.

 

[TruLuv858]

My 2 cents... go with the largest stone you can... Diamonds have a tendency to shrink. Set your ring in a plain setting, and should you decide to spend $5k-8k for a more elaborate setting down the road, you can enjoy the excitment all over again. You can even take your "original" setting and put another gemstone in it, and pass it down as an heirloom, either way, you will have all the pieces that were special to you, your diamond and setting, but they can be worn and Celebated in a different way. Also, styles change often... you may change your mind on what you like, but it's doubtful you will stop loving your 2.5-3ct rock!

I'm not as sentimental, I would upgrade my diamond if the prices hadn't increased so dramatically... but I'm happy with my 2.5 chunky cushion, I'm glad we went with a bigger stone rather than an elaborate setting... now I'm in the process of resetting and am taking my time enjoying the process! Good luck!!

 

[telephone89]

Simple setting, better diamond

 

[liaerfbv]

I think many of the posters telling you to get a bigger diamond now and change the setting later missed the part where you said this would likely be your forever ring. In that case, I'd get the setting you want right now and sacrifice a bit of size for the total package.

 

[Rhea]

It depends on your preferences. I gain more joy from the setting than the center stone, so I would go for the more elaborate setting. I would be supremely unsatisfied with a 3 ct diamond in a solitaire. I know I'm the odd one out on this though.

This. The setting makes the ring for me. Sure, large diamonds catch my attention, but they don't hold my attention. I'd rather have a setting that I loved and go slightly smaller. A great setting can also make a diamond look larger.

 

[AprilBaby]

Another vote for the setting you love. 2 cts is already a large diamond.

 

[baby monster]

Whether YOU would tire of an elaborate setting is hard to say. I would get tired and I figured it out by buying a few settings made out of silver and set with imitation stones. It's easy to find almost every style made with sims and buying these trial rings is cheaper than resetting. I wore each one for a while and discovered that elaborate, complicated, very detailed settings don't work for me long-term.

 

[LoversKites]

A larger diamond is better for the reasons already stated in my opinion.

 

[Diamond2014]

If it's an engagement ring, then you're getting this ring for your significant other. For me, I get the ring based on her personality, base on the way she dress her clothes, how she present herself, and also her career.

For my fiance, she dress very simple and elegant. So when it's time to get her the engagement ring, there was nothing better fitting than a solitaire with a very high quality diamond and careless about size. I went for a really precised well cut proportion diamond and a simple solitaire.

She will be wearing it for the next 50 years, and it have to fit in with her lifestyle.

So out of all the people in the world, you know her best. So get the ring base on her personality, NOT what you think it's best. I don't think anyone on this board would know how your girl's personality is like.

 

[woofmama]

I would choose the larger diamond. I prefer simple solitaire settings though with a beautiful diamond band.

 

[yssie]

I'm generally a 'settings' sort of person, but in this case unless you've explicitly asked for her preferences I would absolutely go with the larger stone and put it in a simple mount, for a number of reasons:

1. Diamonds increase in price more than metals. In case you do happen to change your mind about upgrading... that extra carat is a LOT less pricey now than it will be years from now.
2. People's tastes change. Unless she's used to wearing a ring on that finger (ex. this is an upgrade, not her first ring) and seeing how it complements her style and fits with her lifestyle... there's a definite chance of getting a complicated setting wrong on one (or both) of those counts. There's no chance of going wrong with something simple.
3. Many couples want kids. Pregnancy can permanently change a woman's ring size, and a complex setting that is very difficult (or impossible - some tension settings) to size is the last thing you want in a "forever" ring!

 

[marcy]

I would choose a larger diamond and a simple setting.

 

[AprilBaby]

I'm generally a 'settings' sort of person, but in this case unless you've explicitly asked for her preferences I would absolutely go with the larger stone and put it in a simple mount, for a number of reasons:

1. Diamonds increase in price more than metals. In case you do happen to change your mind about upgrading... that extra carat is a LOT less pricey now than it will be years from now.
2. People's tastes change. Unless she's used to wearing a ring on that finger (ex. this is an upgrade, not her first ring) and seeing how it complements her style and fits with her lifestyle... there's a definite chance of getting a complicated setting wrong on one (or both) of those counts. There's no chance of going wrong with something simple.
3. Many couples want kids. Pregnancy can permanently change a woman's ring size, and a complex setting that is very difficult (or impossible - some tension settings) to size is the last thing you want in a "forever" ring!

I think the original poster is the woman who will wear the ring and she wants a "forever" ring now.

 

[Mnmuffin]

Okay so you can probably tell from my avatar which I would go for.
Coming from a family that the women primarily wear large simple settings (my mothers is a 7 carat cushion with half moons on the sides), grandmothers was a 9 carat oval solitaire) I felt differently and went for a unique setting that people comment on and say is so "me". Every time I look at it it reminds me of my finace and the summer we met.
I especially love the incredibly handcrafted single stone settings with even under 1 carat diamonds and would've worked with them on one for my diamond if I hadn't found the perfect for me vintage setting. I think 3 carats and under is the perfect opportunity to do something more personal and detailed. I don't think you can go wrong following your heart and choosing designs that are on the more timeless side (which French cuts are) so that you don't tire of it. Is your style more on the traditional and classic side or do you prefer to dress in a more unique way?
The other option is that you can go a somewhat simple solitaire (someone just posted an amazing setting with the most perfect miligraining around the diamond basket ) and wear really fun bands. Most women friends of mine stack small bands in different metals with their rings and change them around.

 

[Wednesday]

I'm more interested in how the whole ring looks, regardless of diamond size. I would probably vote setting, as the 2 carat is not small. However, since you do not sound like you are in love with your original setting idea, and are not sure if you should get a larger diamond, maybe you could try on lots of styles or buy inexpensive rings to wear for a bit to see what you really want? That way you can feel confident about it being a long term ring. If you are not sure, the idea of buying the larger diamond and an inexpensive setting is the route that leaves you the most options in the future if/when you want to make a change.