Re-sizing Costco ring from 7 to 3.5

[thatguy47]

I'm looking to buy a ring similar to this:
Setting: http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-petite-diamond-accent-engagement-ring-item-50124
Diamond: http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.46-carat-e-color-vvs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-301042

My girlfriend is from Taiwan and her ring size is 3.5. I also want to get a decent deal on the ring I buy and would like to spend less than $2,000. Should I get a similar ring as the one above or get one of these rings from Costco and re-size it to 3.5? Also, these rings say they only resize within 1 size from size 7. Is this a strict guideline?
Costco ring #1: http://www.costco.com/Princess-Cut-%2526-Round-Brilliant-1.00-ctw-VS2-Clarity%2c-I-Color-Diamond-14kt-White-Gold-Three-Stone-Ring.product.100058816.html#
Costco ring #2: http://www.costco.com/Round-Brilliant-1.00-ctw-VS2-Clarity%2c-I-Color-Diamond-Platinum-Wedding-Set.product.100071440.html#

 

[baby monster]

If you try to resize from 7 to 3.5 those types of settings from Costco, the small side stones will pop out because the curvature of the ring will be significantly changed.

 

[RetroTreeGal]

Yep, you won't be able to size those rings down to a 3.5. You'll run the risk of all those melee (side stones on the shank) if you bend it that much. You'll either have to get a plain shank ring with no stones and have it sized down, or have one ordered in her size.

I'll let others get in to why the diamonds at Costco just DO NOT compare to the one you posted from JamesAllen. The JA stone will out-sparkle those any day of the week.

Have you considered an estate or pre-loved piece? My husband's engagement ring budget was about as low as yours and we found a pre-loved ring for well below our max.

 

[VRBeauty]

I really like that JA setting. How about pairing it with this diamond?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-dia...-i-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-617675

And - ditto TG74 and BM re not sizing any setting with side-stones (and even some settings without side-stones) down that much.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I wouldn't do it!, just order a size 3.5 setting.

 

[chrono]

Don't resize it; if you do, you will always experience issues with the ring. Just order it in the correct size.

 

[thatguy47]

Thanks everyone for the tips! You all have definitely convinced me not to go with Costco.

I really like that JA setting. How about pairing it with this diamond?

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-dia...-i-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-617675

And - ditto TG74 and BM re not sizing any setting with side-stones (and even some settings without side-stones) down that much.

I think the setting I posted before from JA along with this diamond is a good choice. Especially since the diamond I posted from JA is now sold out. I have a few weeks before I need to order the ring but I think I will go with your suggestion. Thank you so much!

 

[Travelgal]

I think a thinner band/pave would make the stone stand out more than the ring you selected. Just my 2 cents.
http://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-thin-french-cut-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-7092

 

[Niel]

What do you think of this? A friend of mine bought it for his size 7.5 fiance with about a .5 ct stone and the proportions were great! I think they would only be better on a 3.5 finger. You can sign up to get the "referral" discount to get $100 off so you're working with about the same budget for the setting and usually you can find a nice round on BN for a good price

http://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-ring/petite-milgrain-diamond-engagement-ring-14k-white-gold_42042?elem=img&track=product

Eta: this stone with that discount is about what, 1750?

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD06142609

 

[luv2sparkle]

Yep, you won't be able to size those rings down to a 3.5. You'll run the risk of all those melee (side stones on the shank) if you bend it that much. You'll either have to get a plain shank ring with no stones and have it sized down, or have one ordered in her size.

I'll let others get in to why the diamonds at Costco just DO NOT compare to the one you posted from JamesAllen. The JA stone will out-sparkle those any day of the week.

Have you considered an estate or pre-loved piece? My husband's engagement ring budget was about as low as yours and we found a pre-loved ring for well below our max.

I disagree that a Costco diamond will not be a sparkly as a JA stone. I would however, look at the GIA reports and specs for pic a particular stone. Some are good and some are great but I don't think you will find to many total duds. If you did, there is a great return policy if you don't change the ring. Just like any large purchase you have to do your research and know exactly what you are getting. There are pros for buying a costco diamond so I wouldn't throw out the possibility of purchasing a stone there. I would buy a simple solitaire if you want to resize down that much.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Always order a setting in the correct ring size and with the head made for the size of your diamond. So that means ordering the setting after the diamond is chosen.

 

[thatguy47]

I think a thinner band/pave would make the stone stand out more than the ring you selected. Just my 2 cents.
http://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-thin-french-cut-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-7092

Thanks! I appreciate your tip. I agree that a thinner band would be better. I still have about 2 weeks left now before I will order it. Want to make sure I still have the 30 day return window just in case she doesn't like it .

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think a thinner band/pave would make the stone stand out more than the ring you selected. Just my 2 cents.
http://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-thin-french-cut-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-7092

Thanks! I appreciate your tip. I agree that a thinner band would be better.

Noooo, that setting with diamonds all around would be a problem if she ever needed it sized and it is in danger of going out of round and losing stones being 1.6-1.7mm. I would not recommend that one. The original ring is very pretty and a very thin 1.8mm!!! That is as thin as I would ever recommend.

 

[VRBeauty]

I think a thinner band/pave would make the stone stand out more than the ring you selected. Just my 2 cents.
http://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-thin-french-cut-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-7092

Thanks! I appreciate your tip. I agree that a thinner band would be better.

Noooo, that setting with diamonds all around would be a problem if she ever needed it sized and it is in danger of going out of round and losing stones being 1.6-1.7mm. I would not recommend that one. The original ring is very pretty and a very thin 1.8mm!!! That is as thin as I would ever recommend.

Ditto DS2006. Rings can be too thin, particularly if the shank is pave'ed. https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/are-rings-too-thin-these-days-t155780-30.html With the JA setting you originally posted, on a size 3.5 finger, you'll be seeing mostly diamond anyway.

 

[thatguy47]

Thanks. I showed her both and she likes the first setting better.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks. I showed her both and she likes the first setting better.

That is good news! I think it is a lovely setting and still will be thin and delicate on her small finger!

When you look at diamonds, post them on a new thread before you buy!