Are the prongs on my ring too thick?

[jvdc]

Hi,
So I recently received my final ring.



It is a 1.4c Round set in a 6 prong solitaire.



I was just wondering, are 6 prong solitaires normally this looking?
They are supposed to emulate this:
http://www.tiffany.com/engagement/rings?lppromo=LPC1040
The tiffany solitaire setting with Rounds in Platinum, Gold and Rose Gold a little below the top.
But if you look at the three rings pictured, each has a different prong size!
Mine looks more like the one on the right in rose gold, which is the thickest.
I understand the bottom support structure can't be too thin, as that will make it easy to loosen the stone out of the platinum.
But I feel like the prongs themselves, where they are holding the stone in place, are extra large? Or is that just my eyes?
It just seems slightly bulky, making the diamond itself look smaller to me.
Also, it floats a bit above the base of the setting, there is a few mm of space between it and the base, rather than a snug fit. Is this for a better visual performance? The jeweler said it was easier to clean this way, but I personally just want it to look the best!
But again, I have been staring at loose diamonds for like, 5 weeks now. And pictures on the internet for even longer.
I really don't know if it's juts my mind playing tricks, or a valid concern.
It also looks like the setting itself is too thick, but again, i dont know, and same concern, bending out of shape because too thin. The setting is platinum

Sorry for the bad quality photo, terrible lighting in my room, and using my phone!

 

[Matthews1127]

Hi,
So I recently received my final ring.



It is a 1.4c Round set in a 6 prong solitaire.
I was just wondering, are 6 prong solitaires normally this looking?
I understand the bottom support structure can't be too thin, as that will make it easy to loosen the stone out of the platinum.
But I feel like the prongs themselves, where they are holding the stone in place, are extra large? Or is that just my eyes?
It just seems slightly bulky, making the diamond itself look smaller to me.
But again, I have been staring at loose diamonds for like, 5 weeks now. And pictures on the internet for even longer.
I really don't know if it's juts my mind playing tricks, or a valid concern.
It also looks like the setting itself is too thick, but again, i dont know, and same concern, bending out of shape because too thin. The setting is platinum

Sorry for the bad quality photo, terrible lighting in my room, and using my phone!

I can see why you’d be concerned. The claw ends of the prongs look a bit thick; they protrude out away a bit from the stone, making them appear thicker.
I have an approx 0.75ct OEC Set in a 6 prong setting, and it appears to float in the setting.
Is it possible to modify the prongs? Perhaps to fine claw prongs?

 

[jvdc]

I can see why you’d be concerned. The claw ends of the prongs look a bit thick; they protrude out away a bit from the stone, making them appear thicker.
I have an approx 0.75ct OEC Set in a 6 prong setting, and it appears to float in the setting.
Is it possible to modify the prongs? Perhaps to fine claw prongs?

No idea, I will have to ask.
But would that make the diamond pretty loose?
Also, for visual purposes, is it better to have the diamond flat in the setting, or have a space underneath it between the diamond and the setting? Mine has a bit of a space, but I can't tell if that as for aesthetics or what.
Added photos

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I'd say the kind of prongs PSers expect are hard to find out in the world. Most jewelers just don't do fine claw or Tiffany style prongs. Not sure if they could improve it, but you can take a picture of a real Tiffany ring and try to get them to trim them down some. The ring in my avatar picture is a Tiffany repro by Vatche, and I think you can see my prongs are smaller than yours.

Your ring is beautiful, regardless!

 

[Matthews1127]

This is “Nancy”. The center is the 0.75ct OEC. You can see the prongs, but they’re thin, and hug the stone.

 

[jvdc]

I'd say the kind of prongs PSers expect are hard to find out in the world. Most jewelers just don't do fine claw or Tiffany style prongs. Not sure if they could improve it, but you can take a picture of a real Tiffany ring and try to get them to trim them down some. The ring in my avatar picture is a Tiffany repro by Vatche, and I think you can see my prongs are smaller than yours.

Your ring is beautiful, regardless!

Yeah, I have noticed so many on the eye candy thread that were amazing, this one in particular caught my eye.

It makes the diamond look absolutely huge lol, but I love the thin claw prongs.
My jewelers issue seems to be the structural integrity of the setting if he thins it out too much.
My girlfriend isn't the most...hand eye coordinated beautiful, amazing creature in the world, so this concern struck home with me.
But I feel like thinning the prongs out a little, or the band, should be okay? Or is he right about keeping them the way they are?
Also, the space between the base of the setting and the diamond? Is that normal? What benefit is there for that?

 

[Matthews1127]

Yeah, I have noticed so many on the eye candy thread that were amazing, this one in particular caught my eye.

It makes the diamond look absolutely huge lol, but I love the thin claw prongs.
My jewelers issue seems to be the structural integrity of the setting if he thins it out too much.
My girlfriend isn't the most...hand eye coordinated beautiful, amazing creature in the world, so this concern struck home with me.
But I feel like thinning the prongs out a little, or the band, should be okay? Or is he right about keeping them the way they are?
Also, the space between the base of the setting and the diamond? Is that normal? What benefit is there for that?

The thinnest I would go for the shank of an ER would be 1.8mm-2.00mm. The fine claw prongs shouldn’t be an issue, as long as they lock over the stone to tightly hug it in place.
As for the space between the diamond and the setting, I believe the space allows some light in to help the diamond get max light exposure in order to perform to its max potential.
@diamondseeker2006, what are your thoughts/experiences?

 

[jvdc]

The thinnest I would go for the shank of an ER would be 1.8mm-2.00mm. The fine claw prongs shouldn’t be an issue, as long as they lock over the stone to tightly hug it in place.
As for the space between the diamond and the setting, I believe the space allows some light in to help the diamond get max light exposure in order to perform to its max potential.
@diamondseeker2006, what are your thoughts/experiences?

Hi, what is ER? And what is shank? Haha, sorry, my vernacular extends to "setting" and "prongs" for this currently!
Also, the space thing, I mainly was concerned because this is what the tiffany one on their website looks like.

As you can see, it sits right in the base of the setting snugly, and the prongs seem to be claws? I can't tell, but don't look round, and they seem thinner than mine, much thinner.
Now I can't tell if they really look like that, or if it's been edited to look much more aesthetically pleasing.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, the stone is set high, but that is just that particular setting.They'd probably have to replace the head to set it lower.

That ring you showed us with the beautiful claw prongs is a custom made ring and the ring maker has the skill to make them that way. The Tiffany ring also has a low head which sets the stone lower.

ER, and e-ring = engagement ring

shank is the band part of the engagement ring

the head is the piece that has prongs and holds the stone

 

[jvdc]

Well, the stone is set high, but that is just that particular setting.They'd probably have to replace the head to set it lower.

Is there any particular benefit to it being set high?
I really like your profile ring by the way!

 

[Matthews1127]

Hi, what is ER? And what is shank? Haha, sorry, my vernacular extends to "setting" and "prongs" for this currently!
Also, the space thing, I mainly was concerned because this is what the tiffany one on their website looks like.

As you can see, it sits right in the base of the setting snugly, and the prongs seem to be claws? I can't tell, but don't look round, and they seem thinner than mine, much thinner.
Now I can't tell if they really look like that, or if it's been edited to look much more aesthetically pleasing.

ER=Engagement Ring. Shank = Band.
Tiffany’s prongs tend to be more fine, and dainty. As DS2006 mentioned, not very common, nor easy to find. Not impossible to replicate, though.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Is there any particular benefit to it being set high?
I really like your profile ring by the way!

Thank you!

No, there is no benefit other than being able to easily clean the diamond. I think there is greater risk of whacking the ring on something by accident when the diamond is set high. Diamonds can crack if hit just right. There are settings that are closer to the real Tiffany setting. Mine is one and that one that you posted above with claw prongs is another. But those will cost more than the solitaire style you have.

I actually have a picture of a high and low set solitaire. I'll try to find it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ok, here ya go. These photos courtesy of Whiteflash. High and low.

 

[cflutist]

@jvdc

Your prongs could be a tad thinner but they look fine for that setting.
Here are two of my rings. Notice the one on the bottom (HPD custom) has claw prongs while the Vatche ring on top does not.


Also the height of your diamond is perfect in my opinion. Seeing the culet is pretty cool and allows for easy cleaning when I am not using my ultrasonic cleaner, I just stand at the kitchen sink and brush the pavilion with a soft toothbrush and liquid dishwashing detergent. You don't even have to take your ring off. When I travel I also use a toothbrush and either liquid bath gel or clear shampoo (what ever is available) to clean my diamond in the same manner.
So in the photo below, the setting on the left (HPD custom) has the diamond raised up a bit while the Vatche on the right has it squished in there. I don't know about you, but I like it raised up a bit because I think that it looks more pleasing to the eye and allows the diamond to be easily cleaned.

 

[Matthews1127]

@jvdc

Your prongs could be a tad thinner but they look fine for what looks like a stock setting?
Here are two of my rings. Notice the one on the bottom (HPD custom) has claw prongs while the Vatche ring on top does not.


Also the height of your diamond is perfect in my opinion. Seeing the culet is pretty cool and allows for easy cleaning when I am not using my ultrasonic cleaner, I just stand at the kitchen sink and brush the pavilion with a soft toothbrush and liquid dishwashing detergent. You don't even have to take your ring off. When I travel I also use a toothbrush and either liquid bath gel or clear shampoo (what ever is available) to clean my diamond in the same manner.
So in the photo below, the setting on the left (HPD custom) has the diamond raised up a bit while the Vatche on the right has it squished in there. I don't know about you, but I like it raised up a bit because I think that it looks more pleasing to the eye.

I prefer mine raised; it’s much easier to clean, and Step Cuts need to be clean all. the. time....lol!

 

[jvdc]

@jvdc

Your prongs could be a tad thinner but they look fine for that setting.
Here are two of my rings. Notice the one on the bottom (HPD custom) has claw prongs while the Vatche ring on top does not.


Also the height of your diamond is perfect in my opinion. Seeing the culet is pretty cool and allows for easy cleaning when I am not using my ultrasonic cleaner, I just stand at the kitchen sink and brush the pavilion with a soft toothbrush and liquid dishwashing detergent. You don't even have to take your ring off. When I travel I also use a toothbrush and either liquid bath gel or clear shampoo (what ever is available) to clean my diamond in the same manner.
So in the photo below, the setting on the left (HPD custom) has the diamond raised up a bit while the Vatche on the right has it squished in there. I don't know about you, but I like it raised up a bit because I think that it looks more pleasing to the eye.

I REALLY like the head of your rings! If my SO had not specifically told me she wants a tiffany replica, that is what I would have gone with! Does the pattern affect it's light absorption/refraction?
That is so interesting, the raised one indeed looks slightly larger!

I actually just got off the phone with my jeweler. He's told me I could come in and do whatever adjustments I wanted to his best possible extent, but in his mind, if the ring was decent enough in my eyes, I could propose with the ring currently, and then come in with her after, and he would do whatever adjustments we wanted, again to the best to his extent, or exchange the setting for a closer ideal one, with a full refund on my current one.

 

[cflutist]

I REALLY like the head of your rings! If my SO had not specifically told me she wants a tiffany replica, that is what I would have gone with! Does the pattern affect it's light absorption/refraction?
That is so interesting, the raised one indeed looks slightly larger!

I actually just got off the phone with my jeweler. He's told me I could come in and do whatever adjustments I wanted to his best possible extent, but in his mind, if the ring was decent enough in my eyes, I could propose with the ring currently, and then come in with her after, and he would do whatever adjustments we wanted, again to the best to his extent, or exchange the setting for a closer ideal one, with a full refund on my current one.

The one that is raised up is a larger diamond than the other one.

 

[jvdc]

The one that is raised up is a larger diamond than the other one.

Ok, here ya go. These photos courtesy of Whiteflash. High and low.

My mistake lol.

 

[rockhoundofficiando]

Your setting looks typical for a common, simple 6 prong "presentation" setting. (see another one by James Allen below.) Often these settings are generically called "Tiffany setting" only because they have 6 prongs! They usually have little in common with the true Tiffany & Co setting which has the diamond set much lower with unique and more delicate prongs.

https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...ld-presentation-solitaire-six-prong-item-7990

Hopefully you didn't pay for custom work, if so, you'll want to revisit what your expectations are and have it remade.

 

[jvdc]

Your setting looks typical for a common, simple 6 prong "presentation" setting. (see another one by James Allen below.) Often these settings are generically called "Tiffany setting" only because they have 6 prongs! They usually have little in common with the true Tiffany & Co setting which has the diamond set much lower with unique and more delicate prongs.

https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...ld-presentation-solitaire-six-prong-item-7990

Hopefully you didn't pay for custom work, if so, you'll want to revisit what your expectations are and have it remade.

Hi, yeah that is the conclusion I gathered as well.
I did not pay for any custom work, he just shaved a bit off the prongs. But I mentioned above that he is willing to do what he can, or refund me my full amount and help me look for a new one.

 

[mochiko42]

Yeah, I have noticed so many on the eye candy thread that were amazing, this one in particular caught my eye.
It makes the diamond look absolutely huge lol, but I love the thin claw prongs.
My jewelers issue seems to be the structural integrity of the setting if he thins it out too much.
My girlfriend isn't the most...hand eye coordinated beautiful, amazing creature in the world, so this concern struck home with me.
But I feel like thinning the prongs out a little, or the band, should be okay? Or is he right about keeping them the way they are?
Also, the space between the base of the setting and the diamond? Is that normal? What benefit is there for that?

Hi @jvdc, congrats on your engagement! Your fiancee is lucky to have such a thoughtful significant other. The ring you posted is mine. The diamond is set low in the basket and the prongs are standard claw prongs (not delicate or small). I actually think that the reason the diamond looks larger (fyi, it's a 1.8ct and size 6.75 ring) is because of the reverse tapered shank (band) which becomes narrower/thinner where the shank meets the basket for the center stone. Here are a couple of photos of the side profile so you can see how low mine is set. I actually prefer a lower setting even at the expense of light performance because I have an active lifestyle and I would always worry about hitting my ring on stuff if I had a higher setting.

 

[jvdc]

Hi @jvdc, congrats on your engagement! Your fiancee is lucky to have such a thoughtful significant other. The ring you posted is mine. The diamond is set low in the basket and the prongs are standard claw prongs (not delicate or small). I actually think that the reason the diamond looks larger (fyi, it's a 1.8ct and size 6.75 ring) is because of the reverse tapered shank (band) which becomes narrower/thinner where the shank meets the basket for the center stone. Here are a couple of photos of the side profile so you can see how low mine is set. I actually prefer a lower setting even at the expense of light performance because I have an active lifestyle and I would always worry about hitting my ring on stuff if I had a higher setting.

Hi! In regards to the reverse tapered shank, do you know how thick the narrowed/thinner part is, and the thickness of the rest of it? It looks MUCH thinner than the one I currently have!
Have you ever had any concerns in regards of the metal warping or bending out of shape?
My jewelers primary concern with making the shank thinner is it becomes more malleable.

 

[mochiko42]

If your jeweler has concerns about the width, then I wouldn't go thinner than what s/he recommends. From my personal experience, it's not a good idea to ask jewelers to make something which they are not comfortable with as it may be outside the range of their or their bench's experience/expertise. As @diamondseeker2006 mentioned, my ring was custom made to fit the center stone, so the fit is going to be a little different from a stock setting/peg head setting.

I haven't experienced any problems with my rings. It's very sturdy and solid. I believe the widest part of the shank is around 2.1mm. This may be a little thinner than many traditional jewelers recommend but if you have an experienced bench then it should not be a problem.

My setting is one that the jeweler, CvB, has made for many others on Pricescope. If you search for "Jovyn" solitaire you should find many other examples of this setting.

 

[lknvrb4]

I would say your prongs are a bit large, at least for my taste. I love my prongs on my diamond, I had the setting made by Id Jewerly and I could not be more pleased. They are so small and delicate and claw like.

 

[msop04]

What is your budget for the setting? I'm biased of course, but the CVB Jovyn is about the prettiest 6 prong soli around... it can be made with whatever prongs or modifications you'd like. My next favorite (and very close to the Tiffany) would be the Vatche U-113.

The ring in my avatar is a CVB Jovyn with modified petite tab prongs, more like the Tiffany. It also has a reverse taper like @mochiko42 has. The knife edge shank gives the illusion of a thinner shank, but provides added stability.

Here are some other shots to show taper, head style, and prongs:

 

[motownmama]

I think I have the same setting and yes it is set with the culet above the metal, which I think does help with cleaning. I've been wearing it for 24 years and it's held up beautifully. I really never take it off - sleep/swim/gym - and the prongs have done a yeoman's job. I took a tumble last summer and one of the prongs bent 90 degrees. I had an appraiser examine the diamond - not a scratch. Having said that - if the prongs bother you, then by ALL means try to have them shaved down or select another setting!! Best of luck with your proposal! Your ring looks beautiful!

 

[tyty333]

jvdc,
I dont really consider that setting you have to be a Tiffany replica...it does have 6 prongs but other than that like RHO said, thats about
all it has in common. We have jewelers who make replicas that look way closer to the Tiffany setting. However, cost is usually greater
so it would depend on what your budget would be for the setting.

Yours (like RHO posted)
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...ld-presentation-solitaire-six-prong-item-7990
Much better replica...Vatche makes one too. (I'm sure there are others)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/514443...-grooved-solitaire-by?ref=shop_home_active_21

Here is a less expensive version but I think this one is a little thick (2.5mm)
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...trellis-engagement-ring-knife-edge-item-58992

However, the setting you have may be what your GF had in mind when she said "Tiffany replica".

 

[AllThingsSparkling]

I agree its chunky, too high etc if youre comparing it with the Tiffany. I would go for the Vatche U113, its the best Tiffany repro in my opinion, lots of jewelers carry it. I love how low and graceful the Tiffany setting is. The prongs arent thick at all. My Tiffany ring:

 

[minimountains]

I'm a fan of the chunkier prongs such as yours! I think it makes it look more like a statement

 

[Morelandsara4]

My ring is a totally different style, but the delicate setting is one of the reasons I love it so much. It lets the diamond stand out. It’s a rose cut and it’s set extremely low, but cleaning is not an issue at all. A gentle brush with a baby toothbrush gets it sparkling. However, shortly after receiving it I accidentally caught a heavy item that directly hit the bottom and it bent. It was easily repaired, but I am a lot more careful about keeping weight off of it. There are benefits to both styles. If it were me I would let your girlfriend decide?