hearts-arrows_girl
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,118
aquanaut|1317067189|3026092 said:Christina, LOL at your comment and thank you very much!
Stci, thank you for the compliment!
MissGotRocks, my fiance decided against the Cartier band this weekend, because it appears too matchy to us. As if, It goes way too perfectly with the ring.
As far as the HW alternating bar set, we still need to go see it.
However, my fiance is now leaning towards a simple channel set 2.5mm band with round diamonds. After much effort of trying to find something "different" and "interesting" she is now saying that after the initial couple of months pass, comfort takes #1 priority, and all the bands with exposed diamonds poke into her fingers and aren't comfortable.
Below is a picture of the channel set from Tiffany. I am also eyeing the one from BGD, but am concerned that there are no holes underneath the ring, which will make cleaning the diamonds an absolute horror. I am suprised, BGD didn't account for this? Does anyone have that ring here?
Here is the link: http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/home/ring-details/?product_id=5402
kathleenparrish|1323236797|3075886 said:Such a beautiful ring! This is the setting I'm hoping forHow thin is the width of the band?
Amys Bling|1323395985|3077533 said:I am still drooling over this ring!![]()
MuffDog|1323442246|3077781 said:OMG that is SUCH a fantastic ring. What a beauty.
As far as the band goes, I can understand your reservations. On its own, I'm sure the zillions of little sparkles look gorgeous, but next to such a huge fireball, it may not stand up quite the same.
What are you thinking?
blueiris|1323455511|3077910 said:First I'd like to say how stunning your fiancee's ring is and that you did a great job choosing the diamond and the setting!I am sure your fiancee is beyond thrilled.
My interest was piqued even more when you began showing your options for wedding bands. I have a slightly smaller stone (2.5) set very plainly (Grace from BGD) and I wear it with a plain platinum wedding band. I like the "plainness" (for lack of a better word) because, as your fiancee said, it's nice to be able to wear the ring all the time without feeling like it's "too much". Your comment about some of your fiancee's friends saying that after their weddings they will not wear their ring as much is exactly why I wanted to keep my upgrade "plain".
However ... I still think I might like an alternate wedding band with diamonds to wear sometimes.I've been looking for a while now, trying to figure out what I'd like, so seeing how the various bands look with your ring is really helpful and enjoyable.
I agree with you that the BGD band just looks sort of "lost". I had a Tiffany Legacy band for a short while to try with mine and that too didn't look quite right. It wasn't "enough", if you see what I mean. But on the other side, if you and your fiancee feel like my husband and I feel, which is that we don't want the center stone to be overshadowed by a band, then you understand the difficulty in finding a diamond band that complements but doesn't overwhelm, and yet still has enough "wow" to look really pretty with the engagement ring.
I actually really like the Cartier band you tried with it earlier in the thread, and since it's bezel set, that one has the advantage of not being "poky" to the fingers (you mentioned that your fiancee is sometimes bothered by that, and so am I). I also like the look of the baguette/round band and I think that would complement your fiancee's ring nicely (and mine) but as you have said it's difficult to find one the correct width without too much metal.
I'll be very interested to see what you two choose!
Imdanny|1323456126|3077918 said:I would look at Victor Canera or Leon for the band, I would consider plain bands too, and I'd add Cartier and Tiffany (yes, 3mm is too big). I wouldn't buy a diamond band from Tiffany because they use SI1. Yes, I would return the BGD.
Your ring is stunning. I wouldn't put something next to it that was too big, machine made-looking, or lower clarity.
Congrats and thanks!
aquanaut|1323457055|3077928 said:Blueiris!!
Thanks for all the kind words.
Your ring was actually one of the inspirations I looked at during my "search." It is absolutely beautiful and POPS from your finger!
I am a bit upset about this BGD band.
I spoke to Jamie from BGD for a very long time before ordering and she suggested that the difference between 2.2 and 2.5mm would be negligible for the difference in price. Additionally, if I was to order it in a 2.5mm width it would not be returable since considered "custom". Since I have never seen a BGD setting/ring before I decided to order the 2.2mm in hopes that it would work, and to have the return cushion.
My fiance decided against the Cartier band because it's a bit "too much" and adds quite a bit of extra metal because of the bezels.
The bar set band hurt her fingers because it poked.
Hence, she decided on the channel set because of the comfort and sleek, modern, simple look.
There is a proverb in my culture "Who buys cheap pays twice."
This is how I currently feel!
We looked at the Tiff, liked it very much, the width and height was perfect, it SPARKLED like crazy.
Should have just bought it!
Good luck with your own wedding band search and learn from MY lessons!
blueiris|1323457780|3077943 said:aquanaut|1323457055|3077928 said:Blueiris!!
Thanks for all the kind words.
Your ring was actually one of the inspirations I looked at during my "search." It is absolutely beautiful and POPS from your finger!
I am a bit upset about this BGD band.
I spoke to Jamie from BGD for a very long time before ordering and she suggested that the difference between 2.2 and 2.5mm would be negligible for the difference in price. Additionally, if I was to order it in a 2.5mm width it would not be returable since considered "custom". Since I have never seen a BGD setting/ring before I decided to order the 2.2mm in hopes that it would work, and to have the return cushion.
My fiance decided against the Cartier band because it's a bit "too much" and adds quite a bit of extra metal because of the bezels.
The bar set band hurt her fingers because it poked.
Hence, she decided on the channel set because of the comfort and sleek, modern, simple look.
There is a proverb in my culture "Who buys cheap pays twice."
This is how I currently feel!
We looked at the Tiff, liked it very much, the width and height was perfect, it SPARKLED like crazy.
Should have just bought it!
Good luck with your own wedding band search and learn from MY lessons!
Thank you for the lovely compliment on my ring! I haven't been on PS for quite a while (back to look for huggie earring ideas). I can't remember if I ever posted photos of my "new" stone. I think I didn't and so probably the photos you saw are of my first upgrade stone, a 2.90 G SI1. A few months after we bought that stone, I traded up in color & clarity - and price, of course! - and down in size (yes, I know ... not too typical!) But I kept the Grace setting and really, I imagine the photos would still look very similar. I'm glad my ring could be an inspiration to you! I have been very happy with it.
I have always been a fan of channel set bands for the modern and simple look, too, and the comfort is important to me. I think the 2.2 mm width of the BGD band looks good with your ring; I'm not sure if 2.5mm would be too wide. Which Tiffany ring did you like with the engagement ring? Do you remember its width?
Please keep us updated! I am very interested in what you decide.
mom2boys|1323457954|3077951 said:Check out my VC single cut eternity bands--they're about 1.9mm each. When stacked together, they sparkle like mad but are still delicate and super comfortable (some pave bands are not so). The single cuts make a huge difference! Just a thought...
Blueiris--We need to see new shots of your 2.5 ct ring! Glad to see you check back in on PS!
mom2boys|1323457954|3077951 said:Check out my VC single cut eternity bands--they're about 1.9mm each. When stacked together, they sparkle like mad but are still delicate and super comfortable (some pave bands are not so). The single cuts make a huge difference! Just a thought...
Blueiris--We need to see new shots of your 2.5 ct ring! Glad to see you check back in on PS!
aquanaut|1323457055|3077928 said:Yes I was referring to the 2.90 stone!
If you don't mind me asking, was it the Si1 that was bothering you or the G color? During my search I could not find a single si rated stone that was clean anough for my vision.
Do post new photos of your 2.5! Is it also a BGD signature?
The one we tried on at Tiff was just the regular "channel set band" exactly 2.5mm wide and was perfect.
We had also tried 2mm which was too thin and then 3mm which was too thick.
arghhhhhh![]()
mom2boys|1323459926|3077995 said:Blueiris--Newjewels has photos of this pave eternity band by itself w/ her solitaire. If you don't mind the gap w/ your Grace setting I think it could work for you also but it will be slightly thinner at 1.9mm. This band still sparkles by itself w/out a doubt! I like the stacked look better for my own preference.
Aquanut--VC also has a bright cut pave style that looks more like the channel set bands you were looking at but they will probably be thinner and you are looking for thicker at 2.5mm.
aquanaut|1323461743|3078029 said: