How much wiggle room in a 9.5mm setting?

[kgizo]

I recently saw a 9.5mm, round, 4 prong setting that I really liked. However, I do not have any 9.5mm loose stones. How small or large could I go and still have it look nice? Could I go as small as 8mm? Thanks!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I recently saw a 9.5mm, round, 4 prong setting that I really liked. However, I do not have any 9.5mm loose stones. How small or large could I go and still have it look nice? Could I go as small as 8mm? Thanks!

IMO, no. I think you can safely do +/- .15mm.

 

[katharath]

I thought it was more of .5 mm difference (smaller or larger) that was generally ok. I know that I once set a 6.44 mm gem in a prong setting that had previously held a 6 mm stone. It looked great to me, anyway

I just had earrings made, in a flower bezel setting - the center stone was " supposed" to fit a 2 mm gem, but the setter was able to squeeze 2.5 and 2.6 mm diamonds into the center bezels for me (I wanted a certain pair of OMCs used).

I'll include a pic to illustrate the earrings as I'm having a hard time describing what the setting looks like. And actually I'm sure I have a pic of the ring I did too (no longer own it though...actually it was lovely, I kind of miss it!!)

I really think 8 mm would be too small, I wouldn't personally go smaller than 8.5 mm or larger than 10mm, but you could always ask a jeweler what they think. This is just my opinion

 

[katharath]

Oh, just thought of something else.

When I set the ring I showed, I considered using several different gems in the setting. The smaller gems were 5.5 mm rounds but I also had a cushion cut 6x5 mm mahenge that I almost tried to put in there instead. However, the general consensus on the boards was that the 6x5 mm stone looked too small for the setting, and as you can see, the 5 mm would have been smaller by one full mm on one side than what the setting was made to hold. I have pics so I can show you what that might have looked like, just to give you an idea. The stone is not set here, merely placed into the setting. Hope this helps a bit!?

(This is why I'm thinking the .5 mm either way seems to be more accurate).

And I apologize as the pic quality is not great, I hope you can see what I'm trying to say!

 

[kgizo]

Thanks for responding DF and Katharath. I didn't realize the width tolerance was so narrow. I'm going to pass on the setting as I don't want the headache of looking for a stone that's a specific size and shape.

Katharath - those earrings are gorgeous!!!

 

[katharath]

Thank you!

FWIW, I think you're right to pass on the setting in this case. Just keep an eye out, something will come along that will fit what you have

 

[Niel]

Thanks for responding DF and Katharath. I didn't realize the width tolerance was so narrow. I'm going to pass on the setting as I don't want the headache of looking for a stone that's a specific size and shape.

Katharath - those earrings are gorgeous!!!

Now that you're passing, can we see?

 

[kgizo]

You crack me up, Niel. I wish I had a pic to share with you but it was at an estate jewelry place and I didn't take one because I had a feeling it wasn't going to work. But, I didn't realize by such a large margin so I appreciate the info shared for future purchases. It was a WG filigree style with 4 tab type prongs and a small diamond on each side of the shank. I'm a sucker for filigree. I'll be visiting another estate jewelry store on Mon so maybe I'll find something there.