Approx. 0.50 E-ring Questions

[Yodaman874]

So I''m planning on buying an engagement ring online for my girlfriend. I have found 2 settings that I like:

http://www.exceldiamonds.com/-Engagement-Rings-5/Diamond-Accent-Engagement-Rings-12/Diamond-Engagement-Ring-JENS458-1382.html

and

http://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-diamond-ring?override=1&pid=LD01658957&offer_id=5410&ring_size=8.5&forceStep=BASKET_STEP

I have very limited funds, and am planning on putting about a 0.50-0.55 diamond as the center stone in either of these. I have researched a lot of information on diamonds over the past few weeks. I plan on making it an G-H color, SI1 clarity. In the excel diamonds ring, Judah said that the centerstone is 1.25 carats in the default picture. I am wondering if a 0.50 carat stone would look alright in this setting, from the opinion of more jewelry-savvy people on this forum. Also I am wondering about the BlueNile setting with a 0.57 stone in it that I have chosen. I''m not sure whether to lower the color to I, whether the color is really that noticable in a smaller diamond or not. Thanks for any help, it''s all greatly appreciated!

 

[yssie]

I think a 0.5 would look fantastic in either of those settings, if properly fit



I remember a few people have had issues with BN''s settings for too-small or too-large stones, you may want to call and confirm that there won''t be a huge space between the centrestone and the two sidestones (that the space for the centrestone isn''t going to be too big for the head itself)



The bn diamond looks nice, you can easily lower the colour to an I and it won''t be an issue at all.

 

[ms.halo]

Does your girlfriend specifically want a three-stone ring? These are two nice options, but make sure you talk to both vendors about spacing. If she's not set on a three stone, your diamond will "pop" more on a band without the two side stones. Those settings may also be a little cheaper, giving you more room to move on the diamond.

 

[yssie]

Date: 3/22/2010 5:31:12 PM
Author: ms.halo
Does your girlfriend specifically want a three-stone ring? These are two nice options, but make sure you talk to both vendors about spacing. If she''s not set on a three stone, your diamond will ''pop'' more on a band without the two side stones. Those settings may also be a little cheaper, giving you more room to move on the diamond.

So true. I was shocked at how much bigger my centrestone looked alone, without the two flanking sidestones - and I have pretty small sidestones compared to the centre.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

My fave projects are those with low budgets

and you can really make something fantastic.

Settings like you picked can look great if the stone is proportional and if it is set correctly, if not, IMO they look awful. (I actually feel that way about all settings

I think $1000-$1200 is a lot to spend on a setting if you are on a limited budget. I''m not sure how limited your budget is...

If you really like the three stone with diamonds in the band look I would consider somethind like this instead. (his site is really slow, so I lost patience but there are a lot of others in this range and style...)

http://www.idjewelryonline.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_28&products_id=1745&cType=ER

http://www.idjewelryonline.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_28&products_id=2670&cType=ER

http://www.idjewelryonline.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_28&products_id=2477&cType=ER

with one of these diamonds (as you can see I have no problem dropping to a J in a well-cut diamond, but there are great options in the G-H-I range as well, but they are not as large):
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/diamond-details/?product_id=18403761

or this:

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/diamond-detail/?product_id=AGS-1040399040002

If your GF isn''t set on the three stone look, I would get an even less expensive (but still GORGEOUS!) 4 or 6 prong setting with a plain shank or a pave shank (ID has several in the $200-$300 range).

Like this:
http://www.idjewelryonline.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_28&products_id=2319&cType=ER

Yekutiel at ID also can get some amazing diamonds at really competative prices. maybe try calling him, tell him you are a pricescope member and your diamond search parameters (with cut being the most important) and see what he can offer you...

Alternately, I believe BGD can order stock settings from places like Stuller and Adwar so they could work with you to find and inexpensive setting of the style you like.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don''t like those settings for a smaller diamond because they will not let the center really shine! .5ct is a really nice size for an e-ring, but I really think it will look better on a simple band, perhaps a simple solitaire, or else a pave band that is thin.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 3/22/2010 7:12:43 PM
Author: dreamer_d
I don''t like those settings for a smaller diamond because they will not let the center really shine! .5ct is a really nice size for an e-ring, but I really think it will look better on a simple band, perhaps a simple solitaire, or else a pave band that is thin.

Yep, agreed, the .50 needs a thinner band. A simple pave band would look fabulous.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/22/2010 7:22:32 PM
Author: MC

Date: 3/22/2010 7:12:43 PM
Author: dreamer_d
I don''t like those settings for a smaller diamond because they will not let the center really shine! .5ct is a really nice size for an e-ring, but I really think it will look better on a simple band, perhaps a simple solitaire, or else a pave band that is thin.

Yep, agreed, the .50 needs a thinner band. A simple pave band would look fabulous.

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/Common-Prong-Engagement-Ring.html

I love this one for making the stone pop!

 

[Andelain]

I''ll just give you my $.02 worth here, I would choose a solitaire every day of the week over a 3-stone. IMHO the 3-stone design widens the hand, so unless she has long thing fingers she may dislike the ring. Also a solitaire in a classic setting is timeless, and lets you put maximum $$$ into the stone.

 

[Hest88]

I actually disagree. I think a smaller stone in a plain band does look smaller on the finger, unless the finger is really short. The stone may pop more but the lack of finger coverage is more obvious. I actually would prefer something like the first Excel setting the OP posted or the ones Bella posted. I love the look of a smaller stone (and a .5 is totally respectable and larger than most women will ever get!) in a wider, sparklier setting because it reminds me of those dainty, carved vintage settings that look so much like an integrated ring--not just something used to show off the stone.

 

[Indylady]

Hi!

I have this setting link for a 4.7mm ruby and I think it looks amazing. I'm also buying a .5 carat diamond to recreate this ring for my mom so that we'll have matching mother-daughter rings, and I think it will look great. I upgraded my diamonds for about $20 and wear my ring every single day, and could not have asked for a better setting on a budget.

The diamonds I'm looking at for my mom are between .40 and .57 carats, and between 4.75 and 5.2mm. I agree with others, a half carat diamond would be gorgeous in a solitare setting.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 3/22/2010 7:22:32 PM
Author: MC

Date: 3/22/2010 7:12:43 PM

Author: dreamer_d

I don''t like those settings for a smaller diamond because they will not let the center really shine! .5ct is a really nice size for an e-ring, but I really think it will look better on a simple band, perhaps a simple solitaire, or else a pave band that is thin.

Yep, agreed, the .50 needs a thinner band. A simple pave band would look fabulous.

Thritto!

 

[E B]

I have to agree with Hest on this one. If you want good finger coverage, and you know your girlfriend likes the look of three-stone rings, I'd go three-stone. The center stone may not pop like it would in a solitaire, but it'd be extra sparkle.

Another option you might consider is a halo. Something like this?

I guess it comes down to what she'd prefer. Has she dropped any hints?

 

[Yodaman874]

Thanks for all the input everyone! Her ring size is somewhere from an 8-8.5, so I don''t want a ring that is too dainty. I really liked a few of the ones that a few people linked here. Didn''t expect so many replies!

 

[yssie]

Okay... I'll be completely honest. A 0.5ct is going to look smaller on an 8.5 finger regardless of setting. If she likes the look then that's fantastic, but if you want something more substantial an eternity ring or a 5/7 stone band is a classic look, well within budget and would probably look more balanced.



Just one opinion.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

okay-if she wears an 8-8.5 I think your best bet is to get one of the BGD stones in the .9 range if they fit in your budget and set it in a plain or pave solitare (but one that is not too delicate--I'd say 2.5+mm) or one of the less expensive versions of the settings you liked.

If that's not in your budget, or if color is really important to you (though BGD Js are very white and the people on PS with J solitares are really happy with them), I'd get the largest really well cut diamond you can and set it in a halo setting.

.5-.6 diamonds are an awesome size and will look great, but 8-8.5 is a lot of finger real estate to cover...

 

[Yodaman874]

So I just talked to her about it today. She drew a picture, and I told her I wouldn''t mention anything about what I''ve been looking at. She drew something that looked like a pave setting with a solitaire.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/22/2010 8:44:50 PM
Author: Yodaman874
So I just talked to her about it today. She drew a picture, and I told her I wouldn''t mention anything about what I''ve been looking at. She drew something that looked like a pave setting with a solitaire.

There you go then!

BUT, has she tried rings on? Sometimes what you see in a picture is different on the hand.

Have you ever looked at halo seetings? I think that with a 8-8.5 finger the BEST bet is a pave halo with a .5 to .6ct stone. What is your budget? I really like the setting that EB posted: http://www.pearlmansjewelers.com/jewelry-designers/beverley-k-jewelry/rings/115PP1/ The brand is very well known and Pearlman''s are a great PS vendor and they offer discounts

 

[Bella_mezzo]

If it were me, I'd get the biggest, best cut diamond I could for my budget and would set it in the least expensive (but well made) solitare setting I could find that had diamonds in the band.

Yekutiel at ID has some great settings that would fit the bill at low prices, as does James Allen.

Brian Gavin has this one which would be gorgeous, but I'm not sure of your total budget...he may be able to help you find a stock setting that is less expensive, but I'm not sure. Lesley is super helpful though!!!

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/home/ring-details/?product_id=5484

If it were me, I'd find options I loved at all three of those vendors and see which was the best deal/quality for you.


DD and I posted at the same time

A halo could be a great option. I personally prefer solitares, but if she wants major bling/finger coverage halos are an awesome option.

If you give us an idea of your total budget we can suggest better options that will definitely maximize your budget...

 

[Indylady]

Halo''s are a great idea too. If you can afford a Bev K, by all means I would encourage you to. As a student with a small budget, these are the most budget friendly halos I''ve seen. Many of us on the Colored Stones board have purchased from this vendor and had great experiences. link to halo
another link

 

[whitby_2773]

hi yodaman

i have a size 8 finger, and i also have a 3 stone ring. and i have a solitaire. the three stone wins hands down on finger coverage, and the solitaire (which is 1.12ct) on my hand looks like a .6ct on anyone else's!

i would suggest a custom made 3 stone; the ones you're looking at need a lot more definition and contrast between band and stone, in my opinion. 3 stone rings, where the stones aren't huge, look way better when the band is tapered at the front, so it gets slimmer and slimmer til it meets the head of the ring. that way, the stones look as big as possible.

a .5-.55ct stone on a size 8-8 1/2 sized finger is going to look small - unless you use the setting to beef it up.

halo, as people have said, is one way. 3 stone is another. i think these two are your best bet. there's a few halo'd rings around .5ct on PS, and they look great. i actually think that a .6 stone, halo'd, is a wonderful size for a ring. look in the halo ring thread and i know you'll find one. actually, try this.... i think this ring is stunning! it has a .59 centre stone, which is within your size range.

 

[karpouzi]

I would get a simple pave with a thin shank and put a 0.5 in there. That is a plenty large stone IMO, and don''t forget that she will eventually be wearing it with a wedding band, which will make the overall look more substantial.

 

[waterlilly]

What about something like this?

WF Halo

The halo will give her extra finger coverage for sure, and perhaps a pave wedding band would look fabulous with this. I worry about pave in an e-ring - one little lost stone means giving up the ring for repairs, but handing over the wedding band for repairs is not as much of an issue for me!

Best of luck!

 

[LadyJane83]

I think you really need to talk to her more about what she wants and try some styles on for size. Half a carat is definitely a respectable size, so I wouldn''t feel like it''s "small" but your girl should have an idea about how large the rock will be. That could change her mind in terms of solitaire v. 3-stone v. halo (especially if she tries these on). If I was getting a 1 carat stone, I would probably set it differently than a half carat, and vice versa.

She also could be the type that is all about size, rather than quality. Find that out. There are plenty of girls out there that just want a 1 or 2 carat stone-- and don''t care as much about its cut, color, or even whether the stone has visible inclusions. I''m not one of the experts on this forum by any means, but I think you could probably get a fair/poorly cut I2 or I3 one carat stone for the same price or even cheaper than a high quality half carat stone.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Yes, I think we should emphasize that we are NOT criticizing the size of center stone you are planning to get! Half a carat is a *very* nice size and any woman would feel proud to receive it!

We just want to make sure from a style perspective that your gf will get something that will have good finger presence for her. If it were *me*, I would halo a half carat. But others feel differently!

It is a hard decision picking a setting, we are just trying to help and hopefully that comes accross

 

[M2B]

not sure how you feel about a 3 stone halo, but I think this is gorgeous and would provide great finger coverage for a 8-8.5 finger if it could be sized up.

1.26 - 3 stone halo

link to main page with price

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/23/2010 10:05:21 AM
Author: LadyJane83
I think you really need to talk to her more about what she wants and try some styles on for size. Half a carat is definitely a respectable size, so I wouldn''t feel like it''s ''small'' but your girl should have an idea about how large the rock will be. That could change her mind in terms of solitaire v. 3-stone v. halo (especially if she tries these on). If I was getting a 1 carat stone, I would probably set it differently than a half carat, and vice versa.

She also could be the type that is all about size, rather than quality. Find that out. There are plenty of girls out there that just want a 1 or 2 carat stone-- and don''t care as much about its cut, color, or even whether the stone has visible inclusions. I''m not one of the experts on this forum by any means, but I think you could probably get a fair/poorly cut I2 or I3 one carat stone for the same price or even cheaper than a high quality half carat stone.

This is a very good point, but I would still encourage you not to compromise on cut quality too much becuase that is what makes a diamond sparkle, and what is a diamond if it does nto sparkle??

You can drop color for a J/K and find an eye clean (or mostly) SI2/I1 *if* you wanted to increase size, but I will think that a well cut half carat wins over a poorly cut almost carat any day of the week.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Could you take your girl to a jewelry store to try rings on? You don''t have to point out what you are thinking of, but she can try a lot of different styles and check size issues as well.

 

[elle_chris]

Normally I''m all for thin bands to make the center stone pop. However, I have a size 7 finger and i would want something more elaborate even if the stone wouldn''t "pop" as much. It''s all about the proportions on my hand. A .50ct alone, would not work well on my finger. I''d want a more substantial looking ring to compliment, and if it deters from the center stone, that''s ok, as I still think it would look better overall.

 

[Indylady]

Here is a gorgeous half carat ACA halo'ed link to Lauren the Partier's ACA

And here is the link to the under 1ct Show me the Ring thread link

ETA: I would advocate dropping the color down to I. Some people are more color sensitive than others, but I wouldn't mind an I or J and think that the color would be not be obvious in a .5 well cut round. Some shapes hold color more than rounds, but with a round its not as obvious.