New side stones and setting for my 3 stone ring *sigh*

If anyone needs to see what the original ring looked like, here's the thread from SMTB.

http://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/finally-we-re-engaged-my-3-stone-oval-trellis-t160563.html

To my very untrained eye, the left and center stones look good together, but the right stone looks a little darker.

Glad you have found options that you're happy with! Ultimately it's what your eyes - and your FI's - can see, not what's written on the GIA report, that's important


One comment on the new setting - the prong tips, are they supposed to be a small stone set into the tip, surrounded by milgrain? If so - have you seen examples of this design executed by this designer IRL, or real-world pictures of a finished piece? I ask because the two rings with this prong tip style that I've seen IRL were both incredibly bulky and indelicate - too much metal required to hold that tiny stone atop the prong, definitely not prongs I'd want to burden a 1ct with. Obviously I don't know who you're working with, and I don't know the quality of the pieces I saw, but I think it must be a difficult thing to make, proportions-wise, and one that I definitely think needs a very skilled artisan who can tell you if the prongs can be made to the proportions of those drawings, which look delicate and dainty to me

right stone looks yellower to me - is that the one?

Jaebond and Cehrabehra, the stone on the left is a D and the one on the left is an E. So, you're right in saying the right is a bit darker. They don't look that yellow IRL. The flourescent lighting cast a yellow tint on the stones. However, the D at times appears to look like my center and other times just a tad whiter. At times, the E does appear darker than my G center which I find odd. The sides are not completely straight in the temp settings so I think the angle is affecting how it plays off the light. I took them out the other day and laid them completely flat on a white background. It was really hard to tell the difference between the 3. My FI couldn't see any difference but I could - although just a slight difference. I I think that could also be a mind trick since I know which is which. Anyway, I promise they look better than these photos. I took some other photos so hopefully they look better. If so, I'll post those later.

Hi Yssie, I see that you've been creating new pieces for your collection - very nice.
I've come to the conclusion and made peace with the fact there are no perfect matches when it comes to ovals. I picked a rare shape and this comes with the territory. If I wanted perfect matches, I should have chosen round brilliant. I do feel better about these stones due to peace of mind. They are all GIA certified so there isn't room to dispute what I'm getting. (Is it really an F or H side? Are they SI2?) Also, they happen to have almost identical proportions that are a better match in the lenghth/width raito of my center. My center is 1.42 and the two previous sides were 1.47 and 1.55. I could tell one was rounder than the other. Of course, no one else could really tell as you can see from the SMTB photos. These new sides are both 1.40 and only off by a couple 1/100 mm in overall dimensions. The color isn't exact matches but like I said it's difficult to tell unless you're concentrating on it. I think the main reason I can tell is I know what they are and I'm hyper sensitive now. Of the 5 people I've shown the stones to, only one said he could tell the difference with time focusing on it. The average person wouldn't be staring at it within inches of their face. So, all that was to say, I've made a decision and made peace with it, time to move on..... If not, I can be doing this forever!

As for the setting, no there isn't a stone set in the prong. I think it's just the way they drew it. It's going to be slightly thicker than my last setting. 3.4 mm vs 3.1 mm. I don't know if they felt it needed to be wider for overall balance or stability but the shank will taper in. I'm new to this design bit so maybe you have an idea as to why it seems a bit bulkier than the last. On the other hand, I don't mind. I think a thicker band will allow a wedding band to sit a little closer. Or am I incorrect?

Now, I feel a bit worried......

Written by geisha_gyrl » June 28th, 2011, 9:46 pm:Jaebond and Cehrabehra, the stone on the left is a D and the one on the left is an E. So, you're right in saying the right is a bit darker. They don't look that yellow IRL. The flourescent lighting cast a yellow tint on the stones. However, the D at times appears to look like my center and other times just a tad whiter. At times, the E does appear darker than my G center which I find odd. The sides are not completely straight in the temp settings so I think the angle is affecting how it plays off the light. I took them out the other day and laid them completely flat on a white background. It was really hard to tell the difference between the 3. My FI couldn't see any difference but I could - although just a slight difference. I I think that could also be a mind trick since I know which is which. Anyway, I promise they look better than these photos. I took some other photos so hopefully they look better. If so, I'll post those later.

Hi Yssie, I see that you've been creating new pieces for your collection - very nice.
I've come to the conclusion and made peace with the fact there are no perfect matches when it comes to ovals. I picked a rare shape and this comes with the territory. If I wanted perfect matches, I should have chosen round brilliant. I do feel better about these stones due to peace of mind. They are all GIA certified so there isn't room to dispute what I'm getting. (Is it really an F or H side? Are they SI2?) Also, they happen to have almost identical proportions that are a better match in the lenghth/width raito of my center. My center is 1.42 and the two previous sides were 1.47 and 1.55. I could tell one was rounder than the other. Of course, no one else could really tell as you can see from the SMTB photos. These new sides are both 1.40 and only off by a couple 1/100 mm in overall dimensions. The color isn't exact matches but like I said it's difficult to tell unless you're concentrating on it. I think the main reason I can tell is I know what they are and I'm hyper sensitive now. Of the 5 people I've shown the stones to, only one said he could tell the difference with time focusing on it. The average person wouldn't be staring at it within inches of their face. So, all that was to say, I've made a decision and made peace with it, time to move on..... If not, I can be doing this forever!

As for the setting, no there isn't a stone set in the prong. I think it's just the way they drew it. It's going to be slightly thicker than my last setting. 3.4 mm vs 3.1 mm. I don't know if they felt it needed to be wider for overall balance or stability but the shank will taper in. I'm new to this design bit so maybe you have an idea as to why it seems a bit bulkier than the last. On the other hand, I don't mind. I think a thicker band will allow a wedding band to sit a little closer. Or am I incorrect?

Now, I feel a bit worried......

Oh! Well, in that case, I wouldn't worry about it at all. I was concerned because I've personally never seen the diamond-on-the-prong-tip executed well - always overly bulky, well beyond "thicker" or "comfortably plump" or "chunky". But if that's not the design - then there's nothing to worry about on that front!

I can imagine that it's hard to match ovals - and if you're happy who's to say you shouldn't be? They *sound* like a good match, from your description! I didn't mean to worry you, I promise. I agree that if there are differences - they definitely aren't going to be visible to the casual admirer. It looks like a really lovely design, the way the sidestones tuck under and face outward, like flower petals - but I am partial to trellis threestones

And - thank you

Written by Yssie » June 28th, 2011, 10:35 pm:
Oh! Well, in that case, I wouldn't worry about it at all. I was concerned because I've personally never seen the diamond-on-the-prong-tip executed well - always overly bulky, well beyond "thicker" or "comfortably plump" or "chunky". But if that's not the design - then there's nothing to worry about on that front!

I can imagine that it's hard to match ovals - and if you're happy who's to say you shouldn't be? They *sound* like a good match, from your description! I didn't mean to worry you, I promise. I agree that if there are differences - they definitely aren't going to be visible to the casual admirer. It looks like a really lovely design, the way the sidestones tuck under and face outward, like flower petals - but I am partial to trellis threestones

And - thank you

You're right. It's about what my FI and I see and like. But lately, we've been noticing every ER and have seen quite a few that just didn't have any fire, didn't like the design, etc....I don't want someone to look at my ring and say "Eww...she has ugly diamonds....do you see that?" I know people won't be able to tell but my knowledge taunts me a bit. You know the saying ignorance is bliss. Maybe I should have totally left the ring up to FI. Anyway, it's time to focus on other things like the ring being completed in time for his family reunion. It's 2.5 weeks away! We are planning to announce the engagement with the entire family present. I'm so nervous!!!!

I know you are partial to trellis three stones.....you have the best one out there! You helped make my decision to go three stone. FI wanted a halo. You're awesome Yssie. Thanks!!

aww, thank you! I loved yours when you first posted it, so I'm glad you're sticking with the theme - it's so romantic and unique (and I mean that in the best way!)

I am glad to see that you found sidestones that you are pleased with! I just wanted to comment that unless you have specifically asked for the band to be wider, I would tell them to keep it a 3.0mm. Since it tapers in anyway, I see no reason for them to widen the shank. If you have very long fingers, it won't matter, but I wouldn't want the e-ring that wide especially if you plan to wear a wedding band. If you don't, then it wouldn't really matter.

Hi all,

Here's a close up picture of the diamonds. For some reason, the lighting still cast yellow tone. I was using indirect sunlight. Anyway, I promise they look whiter in person.



Hi DiamondSeeker! Yes, I'm ready for my ring to be completed and on my finger! I do have tiny fingers. So, I did ask them to slim it down a bit but changed my mind. I remember talking to another jeweler while I had the original, she said a wedding band would sit closer with a thicker ER. I'm already going to have trouble getting a band close with the trellis. I thought a wider band would help close the gap. It's only .3 mm thicker and I plan wearing a 2-2.5 mm band with it so it won't be terribly thick. Is this logic wrong?

Geisha - my old trellis was also 3.4mm thick on the shank, I can take a couple of pics w/ some bands of different widths if you like?

The old trellis *does* sit virtually flush with a band, my new ring has a much larger gap. Probably some combination of the shape of the trellis (it's like yours), the smaller size of the stones it held (it was made for a 1ct centre, 0,3 sides), the thickness of the prongs and gallery itself...

Yssie please take pictures of it. I would really appreciate it!

Okay, I took a bunch -

first up - proportions. Made for a 1ct RB centre, 0.33 RB each sides, 18k wg (I dropped in a loose 0.8ct in some of the pics)




Yours will be more delicate if those pictures are CADs - when they polish the cast piece it is thinned out a little, so if a part is 1.1mm thick in the CAD diagram it'll be a little bit thinner than that IRL. Not sure if your dimensions are in CAD or for anticipated product?

w/ a 2mm plain band - from different angles to show the gap. The gap is visible up close, but it's really not obvious from a normal viewing distance I think. Not *flush* though - asymmetric trellis prong design. Something like the BGD truth, w/ the symmetric prong design, I imagine would be more flush -




More visible in this one - but my shank tapers a bit, so that just exaggerates it!

2.3mm band




3mm band




1.5mm band




Wow. That's a lot of pics.
Well - hope it helps!

Yssie, you are awesome! The pictures are very helpful and I like how it minimizes the gap. I really like the look of the 2 mm and 2.3 mm bands. Are these low dome bands or normal height? Since I don't have nearly as much bling as you, I was thinking of pairing it with a channel set or pave 2mm. I'll have to see which types of bands I like once the ring is complete. Thanks again!

np Good luck!!

Both the 2 & 2.3mm bands are from e-weddingbands.com - 18K White Gold Domed Wedding Bands, Comfort-Fit apparently. The 2mm (1.65mm deep/high off finger) is straight from stock, the 2.3 was a custom job (1.8mm deep)


I have to say MissGotRocks' new channel anniversary band looks *stunning* with her threestone - and of course your ovals are probably about that long or even longer!

http://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/a-tiffany-anniversary-t161038-30.html

Written by Yssie » June 29th, 2011, 6:05 pm:np Good luck!!

Both the 2 & 2.3mm bands are from e-weddingbands.com - 18K White Gold Domed Wedding Bands, Comfort-Fit apparently. The 2mm (1.65mm deep/high off finger) is straight from stock, the 2.3 was a custom job (1.8mm deep)


I have to say MissGotRocks' new channel anniversary band looks *stunning* with her threestone - and of course your ovals are probably about that long or even longer!

http://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/a-tiffany-anniversary-t161038-30.html

That's good to know. I thought I would need to request a low dome to make it sit as "flush" as yours. Now, I know it's not the case.

I love MissGotRock's set. Funny that she has the Tiffany channel set band....I really liked the way that same band looked paired with my original ring.

Thanks again for everything Yssie! You've been extremely helpful.

Glad I can help Good luck