Band width and 4 prong solitaire

[mischa]

I'm new at this. Any advice would be appreciated. We have picked out a rock (1.01 ct, SI2, H) and are now in the process of picking out a setting.

1) I am looking for a 4 prong solitaire...that is all I know...any suggestions about any other details?!?!?!?

2) I have always liked thin bands. The jeweller does not think I should go for a 2mm band. He will make a mould of a 2.3 mm for me to see. Is there much difference with 2.0 and 2.3mm?

3) Is 2mm too thin? I wear a 3.5 loose.

4) In general, would a thin band make a diamond look bigger? (tacky?)

Thanks

 

[mischa]

Any comments?

 

[moremoremore]

you wear a size 3.5? That's crazy that the jeweler would not recommend a 2 mm. I have enormous hands and I had a 2 mm.

 

[moremoremore]

lol...."tacky"...not tacky....I don't know if it would make it look bigger...sometimes I think thinner is better b/c the stone stands out more!

 

[laney]

Are you getting any stones in the band?.. or is this just a plain band?

My plain solitare band I think is 2mm. I wear a 5.25. I have a 1.5 Round stone. 4 prong. Why so thick on the band? Mine is platnium. Are you considering gold or platnium?

Are they making the band because it is special with detail? I'm sure there are tons of stock bands in all types of metals with standard 4 prong in all widths.. and sizes...

just my .02

 

[foundnemo]

----------------
On 5/27/2004 11:24:43 PM mischa wrote:



1) I am looking for a 4 prong solitaire...that is all I know...any suggestions about any other details?!?!?!?

Type of metal -- gold, white gold, platinum?

2) I have always liked thin bands. The jeweller does not think I should go for a 2mm band. He will make a mould of a 2.3 mm for me to see. Is there much difference with 2.0 and 2.3mm?

I think so, for me at least - I could tell that a 2mm band was thicker than 1.9mm!

3) Is 2mm too thin? I wear a 3.5 loose.

Nope, not too thin at all, especially for your size.

4) In general, would a thin band make a diamond look bigger? (tacky?)

I've heard that before, but I don't think it's that big of a difference, if there is any.
--------------------

 

[valeria101]

2... 2.3, the difference is "barely there". I would think 2mm is quite narrow - it says "narrow ring" regardless of your finger size. Between 2 and 3 mm I find the difference subtle when seeing someone else's ring on hand. The very thin ones definitely look odd: the tiny band might make the stones look relatively bigger in a picture, but on one's hand with so many refferences for size around, it just looks "different". If anything would make the ring look impressive is your small hand! My ring size comes close, so I have the sample "at hand"

The thinnest ring band I have is 3mm.

 

[moremoremore]

no way. I've worn a 2 mm and could have gone thinner with my big tiger paws.

 

[mischa]

Thank you all for your help.

Some answers to your questions...

-band will be 19k white gold
-no side stones

Not too sure why they have to make a ring from scratch? Seems like they had troubles figuring what I had wanted.

Thanks again for all your help

 

[moremoremore]

huh? It's a simple solitaire? They are ripping you off. Of course, a custom piece costs more. Total bs. I'd buy the setting somewhere else and have the stone vendor set it.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/28/2004 12:27:29 PM mischa wrote:




Not too sure why they have to make a ring from scratch?

----------------

Yay! Around here people would pay dearly for having a setting "custom made" or, even better "hand made" exactly on their descriptions, even if the difference from a generic piece is not stryking. The devil lives in details, so they say... But it usually means having a better product if "made from scratch". 19kt gold sould like a less common (but better than usual) sophisticated choice too.

 

[mischa]

I told you I was new at this! Thank goodness for this message board!

Are we paying too much for this ring...it will cost ~$275.

Still not too sure about 2.3 mm. I think I will wait and look at the sample.

Another question:
-Would a simple solitaire like this sit high? What tricks can be done for the diamond to sit lower?

Thanks again

 

[valeria101]

$275 = relative bargain!

The height of the ring really depends on how the "piece" holding the diamond looks like. As a rule of thumb, if there is metal under the stone, it would sit higher than if the culet gets close to skin...

For example, THIS would be a higher setting, and THIS can get as low as the depth of the stone's pavilion if you so wish. For models like the first, the setter can somewhat controll the total height (setting the stone lower or higher) but not too much (the lowest possible would still be higher than settign #2, I would think).

Basket and cross-prong (like the Lucida by tiffany and the zillion versions) allow stones to be set lower, in general.

BTW: I don't know of too many 18k settings (forget 19k, that's not common) off hand. So the two examples are meant to show the shape only.

 

[mischa]

Thank you for your help...you guys are such experts!

 

[moremoremore]

that's a different story! It's a great price for something custom made....u sure it's custom and not just taking a shank and putting a head on it??? Anyhoo- best of luck!!! Go for the 2 mm!

 

[mischa]

Thanks a lot. It may actually be a 'semi-custom'?!??!! I will take a look at what they have put together for me next Friday...yay

Thanks again for all your help!

 

[mischa]

One last question:

We were thinking to purchase a shared-prong or channel wedding band.

1) Should the wedding band be the same width as the engagement ring? (i.e. 2 mm)

2) Is 2mm (or 2.3mm) too thin for a shared-prong or channel wedding band.

Thanks!

Whoops...I will post this as another topic.