fellow PSers, would this bother you?...

[mjertl]

I am having a bezel setting custom made to fit my beautiful 1 carat oval diamond, which will be set E-W. The "inspiration" for my setting is this ring: http://www.brilliantearth.com/Luna-Ring-White-Gold-BE1PB1-477/?show_setting_tab=true
Well, today I went to go approve the sketches before they make the wax. I asked that the band be 2.5mm wide (the one in the picture is 2 mm - I have size 9-9 1/4 fingers, and think my stone faces up a little larger than the one in the picture), and the stone be set lower than in the picture.
You'll notice in the inspiration photo that the part of the band underneath the pavilion is thinner than the rest of the band, kind of like it "splits" and part continues around as the band while the other part swoops up to be the cathedral portion.
Looking at the sketches today, they look very much like the inspiration, except the stone is set lower so the culet is just barely above the band, and the band itself is 2.5 mm thick... It will be a very well-made and sturdy ring (it has to be, the store has a no-excpetions warranty, so it's in their best interest to do a quality job!), and "heirloom piece," I hope
The sketches are beautiful, exactly what I want, and the stone will be very low set, which is something I knew I wanted in an engagement ring even before I met my soon-to-be fiance - I don't want a stone teetering high above my finger, and I am in a very hands-on profession.
BUT, I realized that if I have a wedding band that is also 2.5mm high, so that it sits flush to the ering band, the tip of the culet will be covered.
Does that defy the point of an exposed pavilion? Would it drive you nuts? If I had a thinner wedding band, it wouldn't sit flush with the ering band - would that drive you nuts? I think I would maybe want a slightly wider wedding band, maybe 3 mm, in which case maybe it would sit up slightly higher than the ering band and cover up more of the pavilion so that it's not much lower than the bezel, and that might bother me less...
I have always really wanted a low-set ering. Always. And I love the profile sketch. The only thing I wonder about is the wedding ring conundrum... ultimately, I won't be wearing the ering alone, I'll be wearing it with the wedding band, so I should love how they look together. I feel like if they made the band 2.5 mm thick all the way around, and then had the stone sitting up above it, it would feel like it's teetering to me... Also, the thought of waiting 2 more weeks for NEW sketches, then 2 weeks for a wax, and 2 weeks for the ring just kills me. I know I will be wearing this for a lifetime so that shouldn't matter, but we are going to Hawaii in 4 weeks and I would LOVE for him to at least have the option of proposing to me there! (no, he won't do it without the ring, he already said...) And I want to show it off to the family over the holidays...
Anyway, I had them go ahead and make the wax, because I do love the sketches, and then I can try it on with bands and see what I think - if it does bother me I guess we can redo it.
Do you guys have any pictures of sets with uneven bands?

 

[mjertl]

wow, that was long... sorry guys!

 

[D&T]

hmmm, how thick is the bezel? if the bezel is pretty thick covering some part of the pavilion then I might be bothered but this is my own personal feelings. I've had semi bezel with the diamond culet down in the donut of the shank (set as low as you can get) I was always trying to look for my culet and yep I was bothered, on a full bezel I prefer to see the culet considering some parts of the diamond was being obstructed anyways due to the bezel. I like to see as much of the diamond as possible on the profile if I was covering some main portion of the diamond especially since its a minimalist setting, you want to see as much of the diamond as possible is my thoughts

 

[yssie]

I am having a bezel setting custom made to fit my beautiful 1 carat oval diamond, which will be set E-W. The "inspiration" for my setting is this ring: http://www.brilliantearth.com/Luna-Ring-White-Gold-BE1PB1-477/?show_setting_tab=true
Well, today I went to go approve the sketches before they make the wax. I asked that the band be 2.5mm wide (the one in the picture is 2 mm - I have size 9-9 1/4 fingers, and think my stone faces up a little larger than the one in the picture), and the stone be set lower than in the picture.
You'll notice in the inspiration photo that the part of the band underneath the pavilion is thinner than the rest of the band, kind of like it "splits" and part continues around as the band while the other part swoops up to be the cathedral portion.
Looking at the sketches today, they look very much like the inspiration, except the stone is set lower so the culet is just barely above the band, and the band itself is 2.5 mm thick... It will be a very well-made and sturdy ring (it has to be, the store has a no-excpetions warranty, so it's in their best interest to do a quality job!), and "heirloom piece," I hope
The sketches are beautiful, exactly what I want, and the stone will be very low set, which is something I knew I wanted in an engagement ring even before I met my soon-to-be fiance - I don't want a stone teetering high above my finger, and I am in a very hands-on profession.
BUT, I realized that if I have a wedding band that is also 2.5mm high, so that it sits flush to the ering band, the tip of the culet will be covered.
Does that defy the point of an exposed pavilion? Would it drive you nuts? If I had a thinner wedding band, it wouldn't sit flush with the ering band - would that drive you nuts? I think I would maybe want a slightly wider wedding band, maybe 3 mm, in which case maybe it would sit up slightly higher than the ering band and cover up more of the pavilion so that it's not much lower than the bezel, and that might bother me less...
I have always really wanted a low-set ering. Always. And I love the profile sketch. The only thing I wonder about is the wedding ring conundrum... ultimately, I won't be wearing the ering alone, I'll be wearing it with the wedding band, so I should love how they look together. I feel like if they made the band 2.5 mm thick all the way around, and then had the stone sitting up above it, it would feel like it's teetering to me... Also, the thought of waiting 2 more weeks for NEW sketches, then 2 weeks for a wax, and 2 weeks for the ring just kills me. I know I will be wearing this for a lifetime so that shouldn't matter, but we are going to Hawaii in 4 weeks and I would LOVE for him to at least have the option of proposing to me there! (no, he won't do it without the ring, he already said...) And I want to show it off to the family over the holidays...
Anyway, I had them go ahead and make the wax, because I do love the sketches, and then I can try it on with bands and see what I think - if it does bother me I guess we can redo it.
Do you guys have any pictures of sets with uneven bands?

Yes, the tip of the culet being covered by an adjacent band would drive me nuts (it was one of the main reasons for my last reset in fact, after a misguided stint with the How Low Can You Go game). You don't actually ever see the profile head-on unless you've taken your ring off, afterall (unless perhaps you plan to walk around with your hand at eye-level ) - you're usually seeing the profile at quite a steep angle. So what you see and don't see - and what you want to see - can all be quite a bit different.

Yes, the bands not being of the same depth/height off the finger would drive me nuts (I jumped through quite a few hoops to get one that matched exactly). Dreamer_D is a band height nut...


Edit - I posted some pics on the low stone dilemma in this thread [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pleaaase-help-with-my-leon-er-crisis.151166/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pleaaase-help-with-my-leon-er-crisis.151166/[/URL]

 

[mjertl]

ugh, the more I think about it the more I think it would bother me, which is why I think I didn't have a super excited feeling when I was driving home from the store today...
I just emailed them and asked them to make a slight change...
Here are MY crude sketches:
"old"/current sketch:


"new" sketch"


I was just looking at the GIA cert - the stone is 3.09 mm thick, so it's not like it's going to be sitting up ultra super high...

Here's how I worded it in the email to my jeweler: "I want the band under the stone to be just a hair thinner than the rest of the band, and the culet to lie just a hair above the imaginary line that would connect the outer parts of the band. That way the stone will show from the side when a flush wedding band is worn, but will be as low set as possible for that to be the case, and not so low that the wedding band obstructs it from the side. "

 

[mjertl]

I have officially become ring-zilla...

I just talked with my jeweler on the phone. She assured me they will make it so the culet is not obstructed by a flush wedding band, and I will not have to wait for new sketches to be made.

crisis averted. Everyone can just go about their business now...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Don't let them go forward until it is exactly what you want! My ring is like you are saying in that the part of the shank under the stone is thinner. And yes, I wish my stone was set maybe 1mm higher. The first thing I was thinking in reading your post is that 2.5mm shank height is pretty high if it is all the way around. I think mine is about 2mm because my wedding band is 2mm high. I think the culet of the diamond should be right at the height of the main shank. So if the shamk is 2.5mm, then I'd want the diamond to be 2.5mm from the bottom edge of the shank below it. Actually, the one in the link looks great!

(ETA: I started my post and stopped for a few minutes, so you posted in the meantime! I am glad they will fix it for you! You should show them the picture of the one in the link!)

 

[Gypsy]

Mine is like your second sketch... I can comfortably do a 2mm high band with it.

 

[mjertl]

when I went to the store today, the woman I usually work with (who I REALLY like) was with another client, so I went over the sketches with someone else. She was OK, but she's not quite as familiar with the project... When I talked with the woman I usually work with on the phone, she was very reassuring. I don't think that the band is actually 2.5 mm thick the full way around, like the lady today was indicating, though it will be quite solid. At any rate, the person I usually work with assured me that she would make certain that when they make the wax, the stone will be set high enough so the culet will be just higher than the main shank, and not obstructed by a flush wedding band. They have the pictures of the "inspiration" ring, and also my sketches

I am really grateful for the feedback you guys gave me about this!

 

[yssie]

Perfect! Sounds like they're willing to work with you until *you're* happy


Just remember that the CAD/wax will show a smaller amount of space between culet and bottom of the ring than the finished product - so the stone will look to be lower-set in the CAD/wax, so don't worry! That's because they cast a tiny bit thicker so that once it's polished there's still enough metal to preserve durability, but of course once you polish away some metal the small space between culet and bottom of ring is a little bit bigger. So when you see the wax with your stone in it, it'll look like it's not the right height - but the one thing I learnt in my own custom design ventures is that it's better to tell them what you want, in this case that you want culet *just* visible over the edge of a 2.5mm thick wedding band, and let the pros handle the nitty gritty of now to make that happen