Setting with most finger coverage for 1ct with NO halo?

[Green with Envy]

My friend asked me what type of e-ring setting gives the most finger coverage when the budget commands no bigger than a 1 ct RB. He said his girlfriend likes the look of a "BIG" diamond.... but doesn''t want a halo. I thought if getting a 1 ct RB.... more finger coverage would be some sort of 3 stone setting... but any other ideas?

thanks.

 

[cara]

So there is the three-stone approach, which has its merits, but one needs to be careful to keep the sidestones modest so that they don't eat up much of the budget for the center stone.

If its bling-bling she wants, how about a shared prong/4-prong setting with sizable melee? 5-10 pointers rather than little 1-2 pointers? Those will really sparkle, and give a wall of bling look rather than subtle sparkle. Not for everyone but it is a blingy look.

BUT if she wants the look of a bigger diamond, rather than just a blingy ring, perhaps one wants to go the opposite way with the setting - a thin, dainty band will make the stone pop more. Could be with or without smaller melee on it.

 

[vslover]

a bezel creates the illusion of a larger stone

 

[Green with Envy]

Some good options- thanks. i agree the 3 stone idea will take too much budget for him. There have been some pics of recent new PS additions with the shared prong shank... but the diamonds have been 2 ct I am going to have him go look at super thin and simple bands like Michael B... then maybe diamond will look bigger. Cool.

 

[vespergirl]

A six-prong head set high with sidestones will make the diamond look bigger.

 

[swingirl]

What''s the budget for the setting alone?

 

[Green with Envy]

I am not sure of the breakdown... but I think he wants to spend under 8k total... so that is like a 6k+ stone and 2k setting? does that sound right?

 

[customandrew]

Yeah, that sounds great.

i have a similar budget but be careful, the setting can add up as shipping and insurance charges collect.

but yeah...about the setting, i really think that simple, clean, thin shanks that have a 6-prong head flatter the
diamonds size the most. 1 carat is a great size...all you need is the diamond to show how big it is, not any distractions to pull your eye around the center, around the engagement.

 

[Green with Envy]

I think this is the way too go... keep it simple with thin band and 6 prongs because if he tries to make a 8k ring look like a 28k ring... it will not work since she specifically said no halo. i will just start preparing him that someday he can offer her an.... upgrade!

 

[sparxs111]

If the advice is a 6 prong setting go with side stones. channel set or bead set. it makes it look to have a lot more bling, makes the centre stone pop and it will fall within the 2k band budget. theres some on WF, exceldiamonds, basically anywhere. They also do the 6 prongs. Im biased I guess, but it definitely pops.

 

[swingirl]

Consider the Allegro by Whiteflash

This one is my friend's setting with a 1 ct on a size 7.5 finger. I've seen it in person and the proportion looks good as far as coverage goes.

 

[sugarplum]

a 6 prong head with a tapering shank will make the stone pop and look bigger.

 

[Circe]

If she doesn''t object to potentially vintage-y looking settings, how about something with fishtail prongs? My stone is a carat and a half, and people who comment seem to think it''s bigger: if you don''t look too closely, it really does give the impression of a big cushion.

 

[kcoursolle]

Three stones, bezel, or a thin and dainty pave setting that would make the stone "pop" would all be great options!

 

[Green with Envy]

I went to the gem show with some ps''ers last weekend and I got a good look at fishtail prongs- I agree and they look great! i also saw a tacori version of split shank and center was 1.6-ish- but looked even bigger- sort of like the allegro one! i sent him pics of those options because they are all very classic as well and not at all halo-ish.