Pear Aesthetics

[effie]

My first Pricescope post! (though i''ve been reading for a few weeks)

My mother recently remarried and passed on her old 1ct pear to me. A pear cut wouldn''t have been my natural choice, but a it''s free diamond with sentimental value, so I got over it. Now the boyfriend only has to worry about finding a new setting (i plan on hinting him in the right direction)

I do have some aesthetic questions however. Are there particular settings that enhance the pear in particular? are there settings that are a complete no-no? I know for sure that I''m not into solitaires....but I know i don''t want too much bling...but some bling definitely. As a point of reference, I''ve admired the champagne pave setting on Whiteflash.

another issue I wonder about is what makes a ring work (or not) on a hand. I have small pudgy childish hands. Do any of you experts have any advice as to what kind of settings, or band widths might not look silly? Seriously, my hands look like they belong to a fat little eight year old.

One last one: What is the real purpose of the bezel setting? is it all about looks or is there a function as well? My mothers diamond has a few inclusions near the girdle in a few places, and i was considering a bezel setting to hide these, but wondered if that would make the diamond look smaller or limit the amount of light going into the diamond.



Thanks for any help on any of these questions!

 

[Blue824]

If I had a pear, I'd set it just like FireGoddess's

:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/as-etta-james-would-croon-at-last.27786/

(ETA: sorry that I'm really of no help answering your questions, I think I just used that to see her ring again, hopefully more will have some idea and advice!)

 

[effie]

I do like her ring, its beautiful, and the halo makes the stone look ginormous. but i''m not sold on the halo look for me, i have style issues. that is, i''m little bit vintage and a little bit minimalist. the two styles rarely meet unfortunately!

 

[diamondlil]

Hi Effie and welcome to PS!

How about this bezel pear. No fancy halo, just simple lines. I REALLY liked this one and considered it for a while (ended up with pave halo instead). I liked the way the rear shank was straight and the front shank swooped down toward the point. It''s a little different than the usual straight split shank.

I can see this ring paired with either a plain wedding ring or a thin diamond eternity band if you want more bling. I don''t think a bezel will necessarily make a diamond look smaller, especially if it is in white metal. A bezel will definitey protect the stone if you plan to wear it 24/7 or if you are hard on jewerly. On a small hand, a 1 ct is VERY nice size.

 

[Lorelei]

Hi there Effie, you will probably find when your pear is set that you love the shape on your hand. I chose a pear as I have thick short fingers and find that the pear shape helps to elongate them a bit. Use the search tool to find pear shapes, there is a thread called show me your pears and you should find lots of inspiration. I am sure you will be thrilled with your completed ring, good luck!!

 

[FireGoddess]

Blue, you are so sweet!

I meant to reply to this thread last night but I was at work late and just wanted to get the heck out of there! Now I''m at home and don''t have my laptop here, which of course has all my ring pictures saved.

When I get to work this morning I''ll see if I can dig up any ideas.

I think the pear shape is GREAT for people who think they have short or pudgy fingers...the elongated shape really does make the finger look more graceful...IMO. To answer your question, the purpose of the bezel setting is not only for aesthetics...hands down it''s the most protective setting you can have, as it encircles the girdle of the entire stone if you go for a full bezel. It''s also less obtrusive in terms of sticking up from your hand if you''re very active. The first version of my new setting was bezeled...and I just didn''t like it. It''s true, the halo was wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too big for the stone and kinda overpowered it, but I was shocked, SHOCKED to see how SMALL it made my pear look. I guess I personally am NOT a minimalist type girl.

Of course, I see these pictures like Diamondlil posted and just think they''re gorgeous...but in my experience I did not like how much smaller my stone seemed in that setting.

I would consider you go to a jewelry store and just try on rings that have bands of different thicknesses. A thick setting will look substantial and I think make your finger look smaller by comparison...but you have to consider how thick a wedding band would stack next to it...to make sure you leave enough room! Contrarily, a thin setting would also look more delicate and make the stone visually POP more...but you have to make sure you feel your hands don''t "overpower" the small setting. I have a size 7.5 ring finger and my very thin setting does not get overpowered, so you don''t necessarily have to have teeny tiny fingers to carry off a thin setting.

That''s all I can think of at the moment...here''s the link to the Show Me Your Pears thread.

 

[FireGoddess]

Well, surprise surprise, most pear pictures on my computer have halos.

Here are a few others, including this first one..it has a halo, but is bezel set. Made by Ritani.

 

[FireGoddess]

I thought this one was cool...it''s a computer model. Can''t remember where I found it. It''s minimalistic yet striking...

 

[FireGoddess]

Here's MaryAlaina's old solitaire setting for her pear that is now in a split shank halo mounting. In this picture it is on a thicker sort of flat band. It's also a big ole rock. 2 carats, I think?

 

[MissAva]

'');" alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/30.gif" border="0"> Wow that is something, love the copper colored metal (meant to be rose gold)? That is going on my dream RHR list.

 

[oldminer]

The aesthetics of fancy shapes have intrigued me since the mid 1980s when I began to formulate the AGA Cut Class charts for fancy shaped diamonds. While we occasionally thought about light performance, my main goal was defining what the best shape of diamonds of each standard type ought to be. The range of most to least pleasing shapes was what I was after. Those Cut Class charts do a very good job on how well a fancy diamond succeeds in having an attractive "look". How it performs with light is really a different process which we are actively involved in now.

Put those two things together and the entire story comes into focus. We are almost there.