3/4 or 2/3rd pave?

[TxnBluDvl]

I've searched to see if there were other threads on this topic, but didn't find anything other than a random post here and there.

I'm in the process of getting a custom setting done, and she and I are both torn about how far down to go on pave. I don't want to do a full pave ring, because it precludes being able to resize it. The main thing I want to prevent is metal showing in case her ring gets twisted (when it spins). I know there's not much of a price difference, so I'm trying to understand the tradeoffs between diamond coverage from spinning vs the risk of banging a melee stone out when she slaps the bottom of the ring by accident.

Is pave down to 4 and 8 o'clock (2/3rd's pave) sufficient or does it really take 5 and 7 o'clock (3/4th's pave) to make sure that the pure metal part of the band doesn't show when a ring spins? Is lost melee from the bottom a concern with 3/4th's pave?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'd probably go 3/4 just because I think it would look strange to stop at 2/3. Just be sure she knows to be careful not to grasp things with that hand, or at least not with that finger! I am conscious of not even gripping the steering wheel tightly with the left hand.

 

[Enerchi]

I'd go with the 2/3 myself.

When you close your fingers together, they are at the 9 & 3 o'clock position. To go just a bit further down the finger, would be sufficient in my mind (8&4). If the rings will have a tendency to spin, add sizing beads to help keep them upright. Pave seems to be a bit of a 'high maintenance' setting with potential for stone loss. By keeping the bottom of the ring metal only, may be less likely to incur trauma that way.

 

[makhro82]

I have 3/4 and I haven't lost a stone *yet* and I am not all that cautious. I am trying to visualize 2/3 and I can't. I don't think I've ever seen it.

 

[distracts]

I have a pave halfway around (a smidgen more, but to use the clock example... like 8:45 and 3:15) and I never see the plain shank part. On my ring, at least, it's not possible for it to spin so much the plain shank shows, unless the center stone somehow gets down between my fingers, which would be atrociously uncomfortable.

 

[Christina...]

I have a 2/3 shank and it twists costantly because my finger changes almost a 1/2 size between winter and summer, and even when the stone is twisted completely to the side I still only see pave, so I think that 2/3 would work for you, however if I had had the option I think I would have chosen the 3/4 though I can't tell you why specifically!

 

[TxnBluDvl]

This is great! My girlfriend almost never wears jewelry so we really have no reference point.

Thank you all for your opinions and thoughts. Please keep them coming...

 

[Amys Bling]

I have 3/4 and have never had a prob

 

[Gypsy]

2/3rds here too.

 

[J_Rock]

I vote for 3/4. I just personally hate seeing a lot of metal. I am allergic to it.

 

[ame]

I'd go with the 2/3 myself.

When you close your fingers together, they are at the 9 & 3 o'clock position. To go just a bit further down the finger, would be sufficient in my mind (8&4). If the rings will have a tendency to spin, add sizing beads to help keep them upright. Pave seems to be a bit of a 'high maintenance' setting with potential for stone loss. By keeping the bottom of the ring metal only, may be less likely to incur trauma that way.

This is how I would go too. I went to literally half with my Flyer, I didn't want to have stones on the bottom, and too far between my fingers, in part for resizing, and in part bec of comfort. I just wanted it to look eternity from the top and if it spun slightly.