Blue Nile Pave' setting for .71 E-cut 1/4 or 2/5 ctw?

[N-jo]

Ok, if anyone's still there, let me just say:
1) I'm indecisive and
2) wow this new setting seemed to shrink fast and
3) I'm seriously thinking about swapping this 2mm, .24 ctw setting for the 2.4mm, .43 ctw setting after all.

Remember, my .71 E-cut is 6.5-ish mm x 4.8-ish mm ... How could going from 2mm to 2.4mm ruin it, really. It's fewer sidestones that would be .030 size instead of current .015

This is my last upgrade or change to the engagement ring, I'm old.

I'm trying to find real life finger pics again, of solitaire on a band with .42 "pavé" (is it really still called pavé when the stones get bigger than a certain size?)

I have had it since Wednesday. It just feels so dainty.

Trying to talk BN into selling me the scalloped pave setting just so they can send it a let me eyeball it next to my current ring. If it doesn't overpower the main stone, I would like a little more width and bulk, I think. Or would I?

This is going to drive me crazy.

Anyone still there, I'm needing to be talked down. Or, up.

 

[Acinom]

It’s normal to be wavering, especially since this has been quite a process for you.
I think the current setting works really well with your plain band. You have been wearing your diamond ring with your two plain bands before the upgrade.. Have you tried pairing them both with the new setting?
That said: I think that the bigger setting will also work. It would be great if they could send it to you, so you can play with it. Various PSers here advised a bigger size, so many of us think it would work well (though originally the bigger size was smaller than what you are aiming at now).
As the current ring looks perfect on you, I would give it a good thought. Hopefully someone can share some example photos, but in the end it’s all about what you prefer.

 

[angeljosephy]

Hi @N-jo, mine is a 1.52 round, so it might not be comparable to your situation, but my setting is 0.302 ctw, 10 stones total (5 per side), which means that the stones are 3 points each, similar to the 0.42 ctw you are considering. Hopefully it helps a bit with the perspectives!

 

[N-jo]

This is helpful, because that looks pretty wide and works well with your larger diamond. It might be too much for mine, especially since mine is a small emerald cut. It took a long time for me to come to terms with emerald cut on a band like that anyway. So I should dial back the crazy in case the .43 band (14 stones total) is all that's noticeable.

I really appreciate you sharing these pics and info with me! It is so hard to gauge from an illustration. I should just stick with this setting, probably.
Someone in person mentioned that it looked like a petite micropave, which disappointed me. I even wondered if they had shipped the wrong one. Does it look that dainty? I'm not a very dainty person.

Another concern I have is that this one is a 6 and is awfully spinny. Was going to size down in the other one. As I get older, my ring area is getting skinnier. Wedding band is a 5.5, I've never taken it off and don't plan to.

Thanks again, this helps!!! Beautiful ring you have.

 

[N-jo]

It’s normal to be wavering, especially since this has been quite a process for you.
I think the current setting works really well with your plain band. You have been wearing your diamond ring with your two plain bands before the upgrade.. Have you tried pairing them both with the new setting?
That said: I think that the bigger setting will also work. It would be great if they could send it to you, so you can play with it. Various PSers here advised a bigger size, so many of us think it would work well [snip]
As the current ring looks perfect on you, I would give it a good thought. .

Thank you for saying this. I'll go back and read all the comments again. I do have a number of bands to wear with my ring, I like to mix things up. I don't mind mixing metals, and I have the rose gold band & a YG heavy plain band, as well as a wide sterling band with 10 scattered diamonds from James Avery that looks pretty with it. I also have a rose gold diamond halo wrap & white gold half carat halo wrap. I can always move things around. Maybe that's why I should stay at a size 6, because I stack so often. It does fit into my wraps.

I just don't want it looking like glitter glued on a band!

 

[N-jo]

I stretched out my arm as far as I could -- excuse my messy house -- but I guess it doesn't look so dinky from afar. Maybe I'm just examining it too closely.

Better is often the enemy of good. If they let me buy, review/compare, and return the empty setting of the other one, I'll deal with that, then. I'll try to remain calm. It's actually like having my first e-ring back. I wore than slender placeholder setting for 11 years. It was pretty easy to wear with other rings/wraps. This is just the same width, except fiery/sparkly.

Thanks for letting me talk it through! My husband felt so bad when the custom thing went so wrong. He gave me 4 other rings and a rose gold/diamond pendant while I waited on that nightmare to recede
I don't want him to think I'm unhappy again -- and I'm not...I just wonder about the other one with more "wattage"!

 

[N-jo]

The sides are pretty

 

[Acinom]

Really love this ring! Seems like a great size as it does not dwarf your stone and it combines great with the plain band. But it would be great if you could compare it with the wider one in real life.
I can so relate to this as it took me 4 (four!) settings before I found my forever setting via PS.
Hope your forever setting is near, but you might have already found it

 

[GearGirly]

It looks great! I absolutely love it with the sparkly band! I think you can go either way with the size and it will look pretty but it looks amazing right now.

 

[JmeeMrie]

Yay! That turned out fantastic, you made the right choice!

 

[JmeeMrie]

Damn I missed the update.. it does not look too dainty or like micropave.. when I think micro I think the tiny glittery stuff that you can barely call diamonds. I think the proportions are beautiful for your stone as well. But YOU need to love it!

 

[N-jo]

Damn I missed the update.. it does not look too dainty or like micropave.. when I think micro I think the tiny glittery stuff that you can barely call diamonds. I think the proportions are beautiful for your stone as well. But YOU need to love it!

Thank you for saying it's not too dainty! I have old, veiny short hands, even short nailbeds. I'm only 5ft tall. I love the look of the skinny skinny bands on others -- especially those with long slender fingers -- but not for me. Blake Lively's rings always come to mind. I see so many people trying to get that look, friends included. That's not the look I'm aiming for, so I look at this setting and wonder if it's just so skinny on me.
It's kind of a thrill to have the extra .24 bling, so I can't help but wonder if the BN ring with .42 would be even more thrilling without being too extreme.
I just want to compare side by side! I don't run around town shopping, I have MS -- so that's not really an option, to go looking for a certain setting.

Really appreciate all the imput!

 

[Maggiemeans]

I do really like this setting. Looks very balanced.

 

[N-jo]

Well, I hope I don't feel the need to make a change and send back, BUT-- they did allow me to buy the headless .42 ctw scalloped setting to compare, with 30 days to return.

So in a couple of days, I hope I'll be able to see immediately which one soothes my indecisive soul!

 

[Laila619]

I would get the .42! The .24 is too dainty for you I suspect. Don't settle! You don't want to have any doubts.

 

[N-jo]

Well, I just had a loud (and very rare) disagreement with husband about something entirely different -- but involving door-slamming-- so unless that blingier setting makes my emerald cut look like a lump of dead coal or something, I'm keeping it.

 

[N-jo]

Speaking of the anticipated, scalloped 2.4mm setting with .42 in 14 side diamonds, i had been afraid, and others here cautioned me, that my emerald cut diamond might not look as satisfying as a full carat would in that setting.

I scrolled through emerald cuts this weekend from my .71 up to 1 carat. I've found higher carat weight ones, even in the full one carat diamonds, that are the same size as mine, some even smaller. Most .71 I saw do not even get to 6mm, they seem to be just under. I think I was up in the .75 zone when I found a mm size comparable to mine. Many of the 1cts I saw were around the size of mine.

We used charts 12 years ago when picking it, taking note of all the dimensions and such. It is Excellent/Very good according to the numbers in the tables that recommend how to buy for the shape you're getting.
When it arrived, it looked bigger than I'd thought. When I first wore it, those are the comments I got, because I'd said oh, I'm not going crazy, it's not even a carat (to a few people only) I once had a jeweler comment that it was "exquisite" when I took it in for cleaning (ok, that was a bit extreme, but it looks pretty to me) He was impressed that we picked it out "blind" at Blue Nile.

Comparing mine to the values and numbers in this chart, mine has a 65% table, 63.5 % depth, Very Good polish/symmetry, L-W 1.38, slightly thick girdle, no culet, no fluorescence. Its size is 6.48x 4.77mm -- H color SI1 with a feather under the table that disappears. I have to look for it, because it aligns with each band it's been in, so it's not noticeable to the eye unless I turn it a certain way, and even then, it's tiny and doesn't detract. I like that it's there, it's the little birthmark I check every time some store handles it.
I'm not sure why it measures the size of 1ct emerald cuts, but I hope that's a good thing that'll help it handle this .42 scalloped pavé setting.
Why would it be closer to the size of a 1ct than it is to any of the same carat weight stones? Tiny, tiny fractions of difference, yes, but still, I've sometimes looked for .71 stones for fun since we picked it, and never have found one that came very close.

I had never looked at 1ct dimensions until just a couple of days ago. So I was surprised to see they measured up so closely to my lil .71

 

[N-jo]

I don't know. Empty .43ctw setting vs .24 Is it TOO round-y? Too bright, or is it that it has that just-out-of-the-box crazy shiny thing going on?

Unlike the current setting, it doesn't taper towards the palm.

I need to send back today to get it going, it'll have to be sized down because all they have is a size 7.

Funny, I'm not sure. The French cut i already havehav prettier from the side, it fits into my halo wrap if I wanted to use it. This bigger one seems almost artificial to me, or too sparkly for my emerald cut?

Tearing my hair out, here.

Hope somebody is out there!

 

[N-jo]

Here's the comparison:
The settings look quite alike as they face up, because the current one has graduated stones. The .42 carat setting shoes more from the side view, but my other fingers will cover the stones that aren't smaller.
At some angles, they look almost the same. Some perspectives, the .42 looks rounder and distracts from the emerald cut.

I'm thinking it's not worth the hassle, expense, the waiting, only to end up with something that has more carats, because the extra is mostly only going to be noticeable from side views anyway.

Took pics in kitchen, laundry, patio... Honestly, I think the .24 carat is prettier.

That Blue Nile lady is gonna slap me

 

[Acinom]

Personally I would vote for the one you already have (although I initially voted for the bigger one at the beginning of your thread). It balances so well with your beautiful emerald cut.
Tough decision as they look quite similar from some angles.

 

[N-jo]

They look very much alike, but the differences are in ways that don't matter or don't show. Either would work, but I wore it around the house all morning and I just don't see the plus in it. I do like the wider shank at palm, I'm not a huge fan of the tapering, usually. But the one I already have just seems to work with my finger. The larger stones are on top, smaller ones on shank covered by the fingers on either side. So from the top, they look mostly the same. I feel better about the one I already have. It just seems right, but I was glad to compare.

 

[N-jo]

Thank you! So weird how close they seemed. I didn't realize until a couple of days ago that the one I have has different sizes of diamonds, the bigger ones on top, obviously. The other one almost looked like costume jewelry next to it, in some ways. The extra diamond part was more visible sideways due to the deep scallop setting.

I like the way this setting looks, the French part of I guess is the little prongs that like kind of like little platinum v-petals from the side?

So, the empty setting is on its way back.

I have all kinds of bands to add to this one of I get bored or whatever!

 

[N-jo]

Insane person, here.

I think I'm going back to the ring with vertical baguettes. The sides of my fingers hide the French cut band. I liked the vertical baguettes and larger rounds in this Colin Cowie collar setting. I thought it was too prong-y. I'm going to ask if the prongs can be smoothed or shaved, and the shank edges polished down

I'm not usually this indecisive! When it's right, I know it and am at peace. I'm not. The baguettes setting fit my stone so well, was classic and the diamonds could all be seen in the middle...i had ice and fire...I just couldn't stand the prongs, but I wore it exactly one day... Maybe I should've kept it longer before exchanging.

I suck and hate myself!

View attachment 625968

 

[eapj]

Both are beautiful! Don’t be too hard on yourself. Go with what makes you smile the most! I love the baguette one but the all round one is pretty, too! It’s all about the look you’re going for. Go easy on yourself - many of us have or will go through the same thing!

 

[unsettled]

Like you, I prefer heft. Dainty isn’t my thing. I think the baguette/round setting is beautiful. And I agree that baguettes are a beautiful compliment to an emerald cut.

But don’t be so hard on yourself. I went through a disastrous reset almost 4 years ago. And have been paralyzed to do anything since. Sometimes it just takes a minute to find out what we want.

 

[Acinom]

Both setting look really lovely on you and combine very well with your band.
It took me about 4 settings before I found my dream setting for my OEC. I think many PSers can relate with your story. Don’t be too hard on yourself like the others have said.

Perhaps you can investigate even more options by looking at more designs online and by trying other settings from your local jeweller before you make a final decision?

I too prefer ‘heft, but elegant’ compared to very dainty.

 

[Shinybaubles]

Don't beat yourself up! One purpose of this forum is to figure out what works for you, and if you have multiple options, that is a good thing! I think the current setting looks great on your hand, but the Colin Cowie collar setting is also really pretty AND it is not as dainty as the current setting, which -- from reading this thread -- seems to be the look you are going for. If I had to make the call, I would get the Colin Cowie setting because I am not a big fan of dainty ER bands. But either one will look great and make people who see it think "wow, the is a beautiful ring!" Since you can't make a mistake with these options, go with the one your heart tells you is best for your lifestyle/taste.

 

[N-jo]

Thank you all for understanding!
What makes me sick is that for years, I planned on that reset with side baguettes. Didn't think past that. I wish I'd done vertical baguettes and little rounds on that custom ring! I think that's what I'm so upset about.

The French pavé is pretty and so elegant from the side -- and really just works so easily with all my other bands and wraps. Currently wearing my 8mm James Avery silver band with 10 scattered diamonds, trying to relax about it. Still a few days to stew over it!

So appreciate your input!

 

[nala]

TBH, it is clear neither of these will make you happy, but you are not open to other styles or suggestions so we can’t be of much help.

 

[Acinom]

Thank you all for understanding!
What makes me sick is that for years, I planned on that reset with side baguettes. Didn't think past that. I wish I'd done vertical baguettes and little rounds on that custom ring! I think that's what I'm so upset about.

The French pavé is pretty and so elegant from the side -- and really just works so easily with all my other bands and wraps. Currently wearing my 8mm James Avery silver band with 10 scattered diamonds, trying to relax about it. Still a few days to stew over it!

So appreciate your input!

Love these combos! This option is super versatile as it combines so well with your bands. Classic with an edge. Good for you for trying to relax about this. How does it feel now that you have been able to think about it a bit more?