|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » Please vote
|
|
 |
Please vote |
 |
| P: 10/22/2002 1:07:15 PM | |
GiGi Rough Rock Total Posts: 87 Last Post: 2/19/2005 Member Since: 10/8/2002 |
Hi Everyone, I am shopping for a mounting to set my future 1ct. emerald diamond in, and am interested in hearing everyone's feedback and preference. Please reply and vote on your favorite "style" from choices below. What I am looking for is elegance, timelessness, and comfort (with a lower overall profile), yet I would like to make the main stone stand out alone. A) Traditional Tiffany 4 prone setting B) Traditional Tiffany Basket setting for emerald-cut stone. C) 4 prone setting with 2 or 4 tapered bagghets on each side of the center stone, set perpendicular to the center stone. D) 4 prone setting with 2 of 0.5 ct. emerald stones, one on each side of the center stone, set paralleal to the cneter stone. Thanks a lot! GiGi |
| Posted: 10/22/2002 1:07:15 PM | |
|
There are 7 replies to this message. There are 7 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 10/22/2002 3:05:19 PM | |
Tarams Cut Rock Total Posts: 228 Last Post: 12/21/2008 Member Since: 11/26/2001 |
I'd choose "C". That's just my preference!
Tara |
| Posted: 10/22/2002 3:05:19 PM | |
| P: 10/22/2002 3:07:46 PM | |
|
GiGi Rough Rock Total Posts: 87 Last Post: 2/19/2005 Member Since: 10/8/2002 |
Thank you Tara! Gentlemen - come on, you are allowed to vote too... 
|
| Posted: 10/22/2002 3:07:46 PM | |
| P: 10/22/2002 3:21:05 PM | |
Rook Cut Rock Total Posts: 294 Last Post: 2/9/2004 Member Since: 10/4/2002 |
a or b, whichever is more comfortable. I personally do not like side stones. I think they pull your eyes away from the main stone, which is supposed to be the center of attention. I like solitares that allow the diamond to really make an expression. Hope this helps! |
| Posted: 10/22/2002 3:21:05 PM | |
| P: 10/22/2002 3:24:54 PM | |
|
GiGi Rough Rock Total Posts: 87 Last Post: 2/19/2005 Member Since: 10/8/2002 |
Do you think setting the stone "low" on either a or b will look "inexpensive"? I don't care for a huge, tall engagement ring look either, because I agree that simplicity is beauty in itself. I just don't want the ring to look too small since it is only 1 ct.
|
| Posted: 10/22/2002 3:24:54 PM | |
| P: 10/22/2002 5:34:54 PM | |
|
wade_44 Rough Rock Total Posts: 19 Last Post: 12/18/2002 Member Since: 10/22/2002 |
I like C. But, this is a male's opinion. :) |
| Posted: 10/22/2002 5:34:54 PM | |
| P: 10/22/2002 5:47:24 PM | |
scotch Rough Rock Total Posts: 94 Last Post: 3/17/2006 Member Since: 10/15/2002 |
GiGi, you may want to take a look at tension settings, check out e.g. http://www.mickyroof.com/mr_gai03.html (I like # TR006 or # TR 114 on one of their other pages). I find these settings absolutely spectacular, and they should actually make the stone look bigger. I personally also don't like side stones. Regards, Scotch
|
| Posted: 10/22/2002 5:47:24 PM | |
| P: 10/22/2002 5:54:51 PM | |
|
scotch Rough Rock Total Posts: 94 Last Post: 3/17/2006 Member Since: 10/15/2002 |
oops, you said emerald, right? Don't know if they do tension settins for those. I've seen some for princess cut however...see http://www.sndgems.com/platinumgoldtensionsetrings.htm . Just wanted to say I liked those...  Scotch
|
| Posted: 10/22/2002 5:54:51 PM | |
 Previous Page
|
Next Page 
|
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
| |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives
