Another Setting Question

[lstrgtrrz]

So you all were very helpful previously in trying to find a setting to a somewhat unique setting that my gf had picked out at a b&m store. Well, she found a new setting that she likes even better at another store. I felt like I would be more likely to find a similar setting to this one at an online retailer, but I am coming up empty. I could definitely get a better stone for less money online than the one that is set in the ring we saw.) I have a photo of the actual setting she likes, which is a six-prong cathedral solitaire in platinum. I asked the jeweler to measure the width of the band, which was 2.6 mm, and the height from the base of the setting to the top of the stone (1.03 carats), which was 9 mm. Unfortunately, she said that the setting was no longer available, she thought because the manufacturer had gone out of business. Can anyone recommend a setting from an online retailer similar to this:

 

[drk14]

Looks similar to the Vatche Royal Crown:
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...n-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-347.htm

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The setting in the top picture has the diamond set too high. It is more likely to whack the diamond against something damaging it when a stone is set too high.

Here is another setting that is similar, but more delicate than the Royal Crown. (See the side view) Vatche is carried by several vendors including Whiteflash and Good Old Gold.

http://www.dvatche.com/index.php?page=collection&catID=2,18&startRow=6&id=158&alt=1

 

[lstrgtrrz]

I would like to follow up on your statement that "The setting in the top picture has the diamond set too high. It is more likely to whack the diamond against something damaging it when a stone is set too high." The height of the setting (which was measured to be 9 mm) is what my gf said she loved about this setting. She has tried on on does not like the lower profile cathedral settings. Are you saying that any setting in which the top of the stone is 9 mm high is a bad thing? Or are you saying that this particular stone is set incorrectly and that either it could be re-set properly or it could be removed and re-set with a new stone?

 

[Niel]

I would like to follow up on your statement that "The setting in the top picture has the diamond set too high. It is more likely to whack the diamond against something damaging it when a stone is set too high." The height of the setting (which was measured to be 9 mm) is what my gf said she loved about this setting. She has tried on on does not like the lower profile cathedral settings. Are you saying that any setting in which the top of the stone is 9 mm high is a bad thing? Or are you saying that this particular stone is set incorrectly and that either it could be re-set properly or it could be removed and re-set with a new stone?

That, in my opinion, is set entirely too high. Now "incorrect" isn't exactly the problem, you can set your diamond as high up as you want, but people don't do it because most dont find it aesthetically pleasing to have more negative space than diamond and it will knock around. IOW, any ring that protrudes that far off the hand will get hit on tables or cupboards or anything else. Now large diamonds have to sit that high because of their depth but people still wear them, so its not like a small diamond can't, but typically it isn't done.


There are positives to setting a stone that high, such as making the stone look bigger.

Eta: that stone is 1ct?! It looks like a .5 ct in the profile kd that setting.

 

[baby monster]

I would like to follow up on your statement that "The setting in the top picture has the diamond set too high. It is more likely to whack the diamond against something damaging it when a stone is set too high." The height of the setting (which was measured to be 9 mm) is what my gf said she loved about this setting. She has tried on on does not like the lower profile cathedral settings. Are you saying that any setting in which the top of the stone is 9 mm high is a bad thing? Or are you saying that this particular stone is set incorrectly and that either it could be re-set properly or it could be removed and re-set with a new stone?

9mm from the finger to the top of the stone is very high. It's bad because the stone is more likely to get damaged as she goes about her day. My 2.3ct stone is only 7mm off the finger and I occasionally hit it against things. Makes me cringe every time and run for a loupe to inspect it. If she really likes high settings, make sure to get very good insurance for the stone and keep it up.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I personally think medium height is the most aesthetically pleasing, but I have seen a LOT of settings over time. High settings are not only in danger of chipping the diamond, they are also more of a risk to babies and children! So I would never recommend a setting that high (unless you have a 5 ct diamond and then it might be unavoidable due to the height of the stone!).

A 1 ct round is about 4mm in depth, and if the base of the setting and shank is 2mm high, then I would want the stone close to the base with no more than 1mm gap. So 6-7mm total height.

 

[lstrgtrrz]

Eta: that stone is 1ct?! It looks like a .5 ct in the profile kd that setting.

Yes, it is a 1.01 carat stone. I have the GIA cert and ran it through the HCA, so I am comfortable based on the angles that it is a well-proportioned stone. In fact, when my gf looked at it, she initially thought it was larger than one carat on her finger. Perhaps the photo is deceiving?

 

[Niel]

Eta: that stone is 1ct?! It looks like a .5 ct in the profile kd that setting.

Yes, it is a 1.01 carat stone. I have the GIA cert and ran it through the HCA, so I am comfortable based on the angles that it is a well-proportioned stone. In fact, when my gf looked at it, she initially thought it was larger than one carat on her finger. Perhaps the photo is deceiving?

The side view is deceiving, I'm sure, usually you only see small stones with that much negative space under the stone. Plus the prongs seem large. But her saying it looks larger makes sense, as ita closer to her eye and farther off her finger so the perspective is different.

 

[lstrgtrrz]

usually you only see small stones with that much negative space under the stone. Plus the prongs seem large.

Are either the amount of "negative space" or the prong size issues of concern as far as the integrity or security of the setting? As I said, she really loves this exact setting, which she tried on her finger. I don't know how to tell her that I don't want to get the style of setting she prefers (i.e. 9 mm high, significant negative space, large prongs), unless there is a good reason why those characteristics should disqualify the setting from consideration.

 

[Niel]

usually you only see small stones with that much negative space under the stone. Plus the prongs seem large.

Are either the amount of "negative space" or the prong size issues of concern as far as the integrity or security of the setting? As I said, she really loves this exact setting, which she tried on her finger. I don't know how to tell her that I don't want to get the style of setting she prefers (i.e. 9 mm high, significant negative space, large prongs), unless there is a good reason why those characteristics should disqualify the setting from consideration.[/quote
Most of the reasons its not advised is for aesthetic reasons. She clearly likes it though so those dont matter. Otherwise the main concern is knockijg it around on things and snagging it on clothes, children, so forth.

 

[lstrgtrrz]

Most of the reasons its not advised is for aesthetic reasons. She clearly likes it though so those dont matter. Otherwise the main concern is knockijg it around on things and snagging it on clothes, children, so forth.

Thank you Niel, that it what I thought, but it is helpful to hear someone else confirm it. I may, however, mention to height issue to her before pulling the trigger, since that is a concern that may have tangible consequences (i.e. a damaged or lost stone).

 

[junebug17]

I think a lot of this comes down to personal preference - 9 mm is a bit high for me, but if that's what your gf likes then I think that's what she should get *shrug* - she'll be the one wearing it, not us. I don't see any risk to security or integrity of the setting. Maybe you could mention to her that the height might bother her once she starts wearing the ring all the time? Trying it on for a minute is different from wearing it through and entire day. I do remember a few people on PS mentioning their rings were set too high and it ended up bothering them so it is something she should consider. How do you feel about the Royal Crown? Doesn't look quite as high, might be a good compromise.

eta - just saw your response, yes, I would discuss it with her!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Please explain our concerns and also show her the two Vatche settings which are the same style but not as high.

 

[lstrgtrrz]

Please explain our concerns and also show her the two Vatche settings which are the same style but not as high.

I appreciate the Vatche setting suggestion, it is very nice. Unfortunately, it costs more in white gold than the platinum setting that my gf likes! So unfortunately, the Vatche setting in platinum is way over my budget.

 

[unsettled]

My diamond is a 1.5 carat and sits about 8 mm off my finger. I have tapered baguettes so I would consider it cathedral. But I wear it all the time and I can't recall ever knocking it on anything. And I have small kids.