- ouch! I can think of a few designers that can replicate that setting. I am curious as to what the quote for the setting from Stephanie is? This is not a very complicated design, many designers should be able to produce a similar setting. Choosing a well cut diamond should be your primary priority. A well cut 3ct diamond will be so amazing! I like @ac117 ‘s proposals!
No way! That is how much a hand forged setting would cost. Please look into/ask for quotes the following designers - CvB ID, David Klass, Steven Kirsch, maybe Victor Canera.
Ummmm is it hand forged or cast? That doesn't seem like an overly complicated setting. I'm sure David Klass' uber bench could replicate that and provide CADs to post here so you are 100% happy before it goes into production for less than that and setting your stone would be part of it.
The diamond is lovely.
The diamond is lovely.
But, how color sensitive is the intended wearer? Most people can start to see color at I and super-ideals hide that color more from the top than most. But, you have selected a very very open setting where the side view is very visible. That side view is where you see color. Is the intended wearer ok with this much color from the side? Photographic and lighting effects aside, the second photo in post #6 is what I would expect from an I or J (see below also). Does that suit?
On the setting, what aspect to you like? From a technical perspective there a few things that give me pause. The diamonds on the side of the saddle will make wearing a flush wedding band impossible. Maybe a non-issue of the wearer likes the V-shaped bands shown in these photos, but that shape band can make wearing it alone look a bit odd without more to stack with. Alone, the V-shape band tends to read as a fashion ring not ering to most (or so my coworker with one tells me). The two pave shanks are very thin. I'd like to see them a bit wider. The whole ring is wide and will take up a lot of finger. Does the wearer have large enough fingers for this?This is the kind of setting that will need to be babied. Does that work for the wearer and their job/hobbies?
Something constructed like this is more wearable and durable. It still needs a shaped wedding band, unless the gap won't bother the wearer.
https://www.jamesallen.com/wedding-...-shape-split-shank-engagement-ring-item-59207
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...iamond-split-shank-engagement-ring-item-50126
Thank you!! The ring I like on her site is a 2 finger "wavy" ring not engagement or wedding band.
I wouldn't trust my BGD with anyone other than a PS vendor!!
If she is color sensitive (can see and dislikes color), you'd stick with G. If she can see the color, but does not mind a bit of tint, you can go down to I. I would have her look at a GIA J before assuming it works.
Any setting with pave (all those little diamonds) needs care as each diamond is held by tiny prongs, and this ring also looks like each shank (the areas holding the diamonds) is quite thin. All that equals a ring that is not meant for much abuse. If she works in healthcare, I would strongly avoid such a settings as this. In fact, for most healthcare providers, assuming they can wear a ring at work, bezel settings or collet settings are a better options. Also, side diamonds that are bead-set or channel set are far less likely to snag and scratch. I would use a blingy wedding band to add some extra sparkle. I'd also stick with platinum over gold if you can swing it on budget as platinum is far less likely to be injured by cleaning and disinfecting chemicals. If she has to scrub in, she should remove her rings, but that usually involves and iodine soap which can damage gold.
BUT, this is a huge syle departure and I would want you to really talk with her about the setting and how hand's-on she is with people and fabrics (prongs can snag on fabric).
300x240.png)
