shape
carat
color
clarity

Advice needed with my choice and road to buying

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by Siyah, Dec 28, 2018.

  1. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,723
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
  2. Siyah
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    by Siyah » Jan 6, 2019
    Are their any "unicorns" in here? :twisted:

    Yes, I am just waiting for BN to open their chat, so that I can actually talk with them to be 100% sure what my options are and what is considered as "custom" for them and what not.

    The tapered look is nice, but I am not convinced about the thickness near the diamond. The Zac Posen one was is awesome, but unfortunately not in white gold.... but I will ask anyway.

    Thanks, Rocky!
     
  3. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,723
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    by rockysalamander » Jan 6, 2019
    Happy to help. I think the 1st and 3rd ones are very much on par with the .57.

    I chatted with my friend's mom who is from the Netherlands (though she's 67 now) about rings. She says among her younger friends, smaller diamonds are traditional (sub .50 carat), but that is quickly changing. More and more women who want diamonds (not all do still), want a larger one than was traditional. More and more exposure with overseas fashions and norms in the workplace and as folks move around and re-settle. The low-setting is pretty common. So, the sized we are talking about are right in line with "traditional".

    Your last option would be to buy the diamond from BN, have it shipped unset and have a local jeweler set the stone. You may have more settings options there than are on BN. If you do this, we'll suggest you some precautions to take.

    If you can make it work, platinum over white gold is really a better option. Its more malleable, which is saver for diamonds. It chemically inert and won't be damaged by environmental contact. Many of BNs settings won't be available in white gold. The EU requires white gold to be nickel free (thank goodness!), but many vendors don't have this form of white gold. If you go with BN white gold, be clear if it is nickel free or not.
     
    Siyah and sledge like this.
  4. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    @Siyah I would stick to the 0.57 stone that you previously selected if the budget still allows for it.

    I would go maybe a .25size up because fingers usually swell a bit over the summer.

    I would not get too worried about a setting showing 2mm because most of them have some taper(thinner toward stone) or rounded edge which automatically makes the setting appear thinner.

    Please do not go custom anything (this is coming from someone who has done multiple custom projects). The headache for a simple solitaire is just not worth it.

    Also, I would recommend that you stick to BN for the setting. Too much risk and hassle involved otherwise.

    I am certain that in the end your SO will absolutely be blown away by the ring you present her with and none of the small nuances will matter, but you are being a great partner wanting to ensure that she is happy with her engagement ring :)

    These are my top setting choices:
    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...old_63674?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample - ask if the can be made in WG. Even if they say yes, but final sale, I think it’s worth it because it is exactly what she wants.

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...ing_36081?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample
    This setting is at 1.9mm and it has the taper that she likes.

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...gol_19797?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample
    It doesn’t have the taper and it is at 2mm, however this setting is very rounded at the top and will appear thinner.

    Lastly, while I generally agree with @rockysalamander about plat vs white gold, I would stick to white gold in order to not blow your budget completely. I would make sure that the majority of funds goes toward the diamond and doesn’t take a big chunk of your budget toward the setting.

    Here is a pic of my old ring in WG. The setting was 2mm+ but you can see the soft rounded edge on top:

    32C03590-ED76-4D8F-BF47-A224786AB515.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
    Nitedula, Siyah, kipari and 4 others like this.
    


    


  5. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,305
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 6, 2019
    As others have noted I'd stick with the 0.57ct stone. You have made references that both she and you think the diamond is the most important aspect. That said, stick with the 0.57 and consider that big picture goal complete.

    As far as the thickness you are driving yourself bonkers for no good reason. Anything less than 2mm can present structural integrity issues. You don't want that.

    So cheat the thickness by using an optical illusion but not sacrificing the strength of the ring. You can do this by using the knife edge option that @SimoneDi posted early on. It is 2mm but looks thinner because of the knife edge.

    Strength, looks, multiple metal choices, budget friendly and standard so a return is easy and no custom headaches.

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...gol_19797?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample

    Two final thoughts. I would do platinum over 14k WG. Platinum is heavier so it feels like a better built and more substantial ring. Its not massive weight so it won't be even close to a burden but it has a quality feel to it.

    More importantly WG rings are white because of the rhodium. Depending on HER chemical composure, the rhodium will eventually break down and start to yellow. It's easy to fix, you take to a jeweler and have them re-plate it. Problem is a local jeweler will likely charge you a small fee to do this or BN may do of you pay for shipping (which is a headache IMO, and I'd use a local guy). The bigger question is how long between service periods. My chemicals are harsh and its 6 months or less. Others get 1-2 years on average. But eventually it will happen. With platinum this is a non issue.

    My other thought was if BN can do this setting with the prongs in the compass orientation as you liked that, it made the stone look less square and it also visually made the stone look better.

    Even splurging on platinum you are talking 600 euros for the setting plus 1700 euros for the 0.57 stone less 75 euros for the coupon puts you at 2,225 euros total!

    That's a steal of a price and you will have a kick ass ideal cut diamond and lovely high quality and strong platinum setting. Again...winner, winner, chicken dinner!!
     
  6. Matilda
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    467
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2018
    by Matilda » Jan 6, 2019
    @Siyah, personally, as said above, I would go for the 0.57, even if that means a slightly less than ideal setting. On another note after a (often very) short while the diamond appears smaller to the wearer, so what may at first sight seem "big" soon "shrinks". It is likely after a week, a month, she will not think the diamond is too big at all!
    Are you planning on proposing during BN'S return period? If yes you can return the setting if its not what she wants.
     
  7. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    @sledge we are on the same page regarding the 0.57 diamond, but I am sorry, I disagree with you regarding PT vs 14kt/18kt WG. WG is not white because of rhodium plating alone, it is white because as you know, gold is mixed with other metals - nickel, silver, copper, zink and the more expensive mixes contain palladium like your fiancés’ ring. I personally have never had to rhodium plate any of my white gold jewels and some of them are 30 years old. My husband has been wearing 24/7 his 14kt white gold band for 3+ years and it is still as white and shiny as the day I placed it on his finger. While some people might have a strong chemical reaction with gold, many don’t. In many European countries, gold alloys are way more common vs pt. PT doesn’t need to be rhodium plated, but it need to be polished every couple of years, that costs about the same as rhodium plating, so the maintenance of both metals is very similar.

    There is a €420-425 difference between the PT and 14kt WG version for the Classic Four Claw Solitaire Engagement Ring and the Petite Cathedral Solitaire. The difference will be almost sufficient to pay for a delicate diamond wedding band like this one: https://www.bluenile.com/nl/diamond-14k-white-gold-ring_23208?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample

    When budget matters, PT is not always best and Gold is a perfectly great metal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
    Nitedula, sledge, Matilda and 2 others like this.
  8. nojs
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    166
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    by nojs » Jan 6, 2019
    Just a side note: EU does allow nickel in white gold. There is a limit on how much nickel can be released from the product, but this is impossible to prove (well not impossible, but not easy either). So if you do get white gold, make sure it is alloyed with palladium and not nickel.
     
  9. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,999
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Jan 6, 2019
    I've never had an issue w. My 14k gold pieces. Of course plat is great, but when one is on a budget I'd stick with 14k
     
  10. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,723
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    by rockysalamander » Jan 6, 2019
    I don't disagree...really. I think @Siyah will know his girls feeling on health issues. My friend's mom from the Netherlands has mentioned that there was quite a negative feelings about WG containing nickel among the young.
     
    Siyah likes this.
    


    


  11. josieKat
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    May 13, 2018
    by josieKat » Jan 6, 2019
    I know the other posters are trying to help you find an option that will work with BN offerings, but if I were the one who wanted a flat vs. rounded band and a taper like the setting in your picture (this is also what I wanted), and I received a knife edge with no taper, I'd be disappointed.
     
    Nitedula, rockysalamander and Siyah like this.
  12. Siyah
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    by Siyah » Jan 6, 2019
    Thank you all, once again! I will chat with BN now to ask the questions I was going to ask. After that, I will make a decision based on everything I read here and share it with you. Fingers crossed.
     
    rockysalamander likes this.
  13. Siyah
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    by Siyah » Jan 6, 2019
    First reaction: they can't customise the Zac Posen setting as it's a designer setting and that one is not allowed to be white gold, unfortunately. Very sad, as this was THE setting I definitely wanted to go for. :(2

    I'll wait for them to call so that I can talk with an expert to get extra advice and to understand what their possibilities are.
     
    rockysalamander likes this.
  14. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    @Siyah sorry to hear about the Zac Posen setting, that is disappointing. What about the other petite taper setting? https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...ing_36081?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample

    I have one more suggestion - your girlfriend is obviously aware that you are looking at rings, can you just show them to her and have her pick one? Maybe she would like more the design and be ok with yellow gold if the prongs are white or like a different setting.
     
    Nitedula and Siyah like this.
  15. josieKat
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    May 13, 2018
    by josieKat » Jan 6, 2019
    I like that petite cathedral one the best - it seems to capture the band shape and taper well. OP it says 2mm for the band, but it clearly tapers smaller than that near the diamond.
     
    Matilda, Siyah and SimoneDi like this.
    


    


  16. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    I agree - it’s 2mm at the bottom, probably 1.3mm at the top.
     
    Matilda and Siyah like this.
  17. Siyah
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    by Siyah » Jan 6, 2019
    Even though I agree with you, when I compare it to the one she liked, I am sure this one is then too thin on the top... and when I look to real pics (like here: https://boards.weddingbee.com/topic/does-any-one-have-the-petite-cathedral-setting-from-blue-nile/), I actually am not convinced as it does not seem very pretty.

    Please compare it with the one below:



    The style her is the one she liked the most. So a bit thinner towards the diamond (it was 1.5 or 1.6mm if I am correct) and then quite stylishly getting bigger. This was a cathedral, but then one without the triangle/gap below the band so that it keeps being low.



    I am still not sure which settings is more suitable... never thought something like this would be so hard. The difference between the side and top view is huge, but that's what she liked the most I guess.
     
  18. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    @Siyah read the reviews for the settings. This is one one reviewer says about the setting:
    “The cathedral setting is a secure style that does not stick out as far as other settings. My fiance was looking for a low profile engagement band and this did the job. A smaller diamond looks fantastic in this setting, as well as larger diamond example that was on display in store looked great also. Simple design that fits with multiple wedding band options in the future. Very thin, but solid.”

    I think this setting fits the bill pretty well. I actually prefer it’s profile vs the one tried on in the store.
     
  19. Siyah
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    by Siyah » Jan 6, 2019
    Yes, I saw that one indeed. There are just a couple of settings that I'd like to choose, as we narrowed it down already a lot. That is of course very good, but they are not convincing enough for me. I would have loved to see real pics of all of them, but sadly I can't find real pics of all of them. The experts also didn't call, so I will need to wait one more day. After that, I am sure I can make a decision.

    Thanks again for all the help. 95% is done, I just need the last 5% now.

    The more I compare, the best this one looks....

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...old_23193?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample

    Or is it optical illusion? :D
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  20. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    Take your time @Siyah.

    This is the other one I liked, but the taper is not as pronounced: https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...r=customizer&track=alternate-metalsCustomizer

    I found a pic with a 0.58 princess cut. Please note that the prongs on princess cuts are always a bit larger in order to protect the corners.

    59171039-2D6E-474E-AA07-6F150D51313D.jpeg

    ETA: I actually think that we have been looking at the wrong setting all along. I think that the Classic Tapered setting is the best one for your SO: https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...old_23193?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample

    It seems thicker in the computer generated photos, but if you read the reviews, posters say that it is more delicate in person and it is the only one that really exagerates the taper toward the stone.

    Here with a 0.5ct stone:
    455FA5D5-1F74-4CFC-9D84-57623C4A6839.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
    Nitedula, Siyah and rockysalamander like this.
  21. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,305
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 6, 2019
    Agree PT isn't always the most budget friendly metal, but IMO, it does have some advantages. That said, if metal choice causes the big picture goal to fail then it's the wrong answer.

    As far as the chemicals, I would agree that my own experiences are more severe than most people. Just as I feel you and your husbands are rare -- except on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've never worn much jewelry and the ring I had is long gone as it was given as a gift from a previous relationship so I am not sure the exact alloy mixture. I suspect it was low quality as we weren't very old at the time and neither had much money then. I've never been a fan of YG, so I remember being annoyed by the fact it turned yellow so quickly and frequently after it would get fixed/re-plated.

    In the case of my fiancee, I really wanted her to go PT. However, DK didn't recommend the metal type for her specific setting type and she actually prefers the little bit of extra shine you get with WG vs PT. I was relieved when DK reported they had a WG/palladium alloy mix that would never yellow, require re-plating, etc. For the record, it was only $100-200 cheaper to use that alloy mix than to go PT. Of course her setting was around $2k total (w/o the diamond).

    Getting back on topic, given the budget constraints -- going with WG would allow the 400 euros to be better used on the wedding/eternity band you linked and would absolutely lovely together with a simple solitaire setting.

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/diamond-14k-white-gold-ring_23208?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample
     
    Siyah and rockysalamander like this.
  22. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,305
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 6, 2019
    FYI, looking at the petite cathedral ring there was some advertising at the bottom showing what I assume to be that specific ring with a wedding band. Notice it has such a tiny taper back into the diamond?

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...ing_36081?elem=img&track=product&vtype=sample


    Capture.PNG


    Looking at the petite solitaire ring that was linked, it didn't have the taper but was a little bit wider. Also, when combined with the wedding band I actually like the look a little better than the above. Again, I assume this screen cap is the exact setting since it's trying to entice you to buy a wedding band that matches it.

    https://www.bluenile.com/nl/build-y...r=customizer&track=alternate-metalsCustomizer

    Capture2.PNG
     
    Siyah and SimoneDi like this.
  23. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    I agree with @sledge re the lack of taper on the cathedral petite. I was able to find some pics online. They are with larger center stones, but the taper is almost invisible, so I would eliminate that setting.
    36D21F6C-CF07-43BA-926F-7FDE519448A9.jpeg 9A3B3594-D073-4D17-A735-8EDCEC09F04E.jpeg C8CFC742-8EF0-4284-878D-5B0107B1F897.jpeg 59AFE924-74B3-4DC1-A949-2A2271823CE4.jpeg

    I do, however, LOVE the Classic Tapered four prong for your girlfriend, it is exactly the style that she likes :love:

    5D0E088C-ED2E-4B07-9385-B86930EFFA4F.jpeg

    P.S. I scaled to fit her hand pic with the ring to my ring size which is a bit smaller than hers and the setting that she tried on is 100% at least 2mm on the bottom, but obviously tapers on the top.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  24. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,305
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 6, 2019
    Alas, keep in mind that the width measurement will look different from person to person depending on the size of their fingers. In US sizing, your girl is a size 6. That is about average. A small finger size might be considered a 3 to 5.

    My point in saying this is that perhaps a 1.60-1.80 thickness might look more flattering on a size 3-5, whereas a 2mm might look a little better on a larger 6-7 finger.

    As a guy I have big fingers, 12.5 per US standards. Getting a band that is 3-4mm would look dainty on me. Pretty sure 1.6-1.8mm would look like a paper clip put around my finger, lol. I've been targeted an 8mm band for me. But obviously guy rings have a different style than womens.

    My point remains, actual finger size will play into the final width you choose. I think that is part of the reason some of the actual pictures you are seeing look good and some don't.
     
  25. Siyah
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    100
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    by Siyah » Jan 6, 2019
    Yes, you are right. I prefer the classic tapered setting as it's classic AND tapered, but the problem is the thickness. I actually called BN for this and they told me that the thinnest area is 2.9mm (!) which is way way too much.

    They are now checking what is possible. I also told them that I would have prefered the Zac Posen one and that it should be something like that. They are now checking the possibilities and will come back to me asap (nice service!). I assume this will be a custom made setting, as there is none that is exactly matching with my needs.

    The cathedral has almost no taper so I would also assume that is not an option anymore. I am between this one and the classic 4 prong, but as I said: the measurements aren't right. You are absolutely right of course @sledge, yet e.g. the 2.9mm is way too much for me to go forward with that one.

    I am assuming I will have a positive answer with some alternatives/options from BN by tomorrow.
     
  26. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,305
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Jan 6, 2019
    If you ignore the dimensions, I think this ring will actually be more flattering on a size 6 finger because it is wider and has a more visible taper.

    My fiance's ring is a ball of varying widths. The pave is 1.80 but the the thickest part is 2.80. The channel section is around 2.2 or 2.3 best I recall.

    With all the movement and her larger fingers it all works well. I do remember when first starting my journey I thought smaller and more petite was better but fiancee had pointed out thicker stuff. When I saw it in person I realized she was right.
     
    Siyah likes this.
  27. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    I edited my last post to add a new comment, please read it.

    And the tapered classic is not 2.9mm on the bottom, it is 2.25mm at the bottom, not the top! The CS rep should know better. There is absolutely NO way that the setting is 2.9mm wide at the top. Maybe 2.9mm tall? Which would be very similar to the setting your SO tried on in the store.
    18B3A695-56A4-465C-A99B-F5BD6F8D774B.jpeg
    Here is a pic of 2mm band next to a 2.25mm, which is which?

    B705D326-6EA6-4107-A735-701DB52DFA18.jpeg

    Please don’t be scared of the 2.25mm measure because that is still a very delicate band.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
    kipari and Siyah like this.
  28. Matilda
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    467
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2018
    by Matilda » Jan 6, 2019
    that is right @SimoneDi.If you click the i icon next to 2.25mm it says for the wisest part of the ring, so the both here I would think. From the photos SimoneDi loaded it looked like the ring was a lot LESS than 2.9mm at the top...It is a very dainty/skinny setting!
     
    SimoneDi and Siyah like this.
  29. SimoneDi
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,496
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    by SimoneDi » Jan 6, 2019
    @Siyah I got a bit annoyed at the incorrect info you are receiving from BN, so I reached it to them on my own :D

    D061EF42-9B89-45ED-BA6F-AE5C7ECACDE5.jpeg
    8A09C00B-1D1E-47CE-8C08-7A1A51D992B2.jpeg
    I will post the response once I get it. Stay tuned!
     
    kipari, Nitedula, ac117 and 2 others like this.
  30. Matilda
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    467
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2018
    by Matilda » Jan 6, 2019
    haha awesome detective work!
     
    kipari, Siyah and SimoneDi like this.

Share This Page