Debating between these 3 settings

[katrina_33]

For a 1.5 ct RB H&A diamond...

Just want input and pros/cons, even if they''re just people''s personal tastes and opinions.

It helps me to hear other people''s perceptions.

They''re all really different!

This is the first of 3.

Thanks!

 

[katrina_33]

Another view of that same first ring...

 

[katrina_33]

The second option, which I 'm sure everyone recognizes! I saw on hand pics of this setting in the "Show Me The Ring" forum, and was blown away. I wonder how it would look on hand with a RB center?

 

[katrina_33]

The third, though I think I would forgoe (is that spelled right, it looks really strange!) the matching band as it's a bit bulky together I think.

Thanks for you input!

 

[headlight]

Wow, you sure have targeted three completely different looks! Well, right off the bat I would eliminate #2. Obviously, this is JMO, so take it for what it is worth, but I think you will tire of that in a relatively short period of time. Personally, that design doesn't appeal to me as I don't think that any of its elements go together; it just looks like a big mish-mosh of design elements thrown together (sorry).

I think #2 and #3 are way more timeless styles that will stand the test of time. Although they are both very classic for their particular styles' genre, they each also have a unique flare that makes them stand out.

Honestly, I actually liked #3 with its matching band, and I am usually not one who likes "sets" but this one is very elegant. In #1, I like how they "inlaid" the trillions. Choice #1 will be the most comfortable and thus the most enjoyable to wear on a daily basis because of the way it is set and its substantial shank (i.e. no spinning, flopping, turning, etc.).

 

[rms]

Just a consumer's opinion from me. My vote would be 1 or 3. I think #1 is really lovely. The only thing about #3 is whether she would want to wear the wedding band separately. If she would, then I wouldn't choose #3 because the band is curved.

 

[squirerad]

Although the center in #1 is an oval, I think that a RB would also be very lovely in it. If it's platinum, it looks quite substantial. Althought the U-prong is also set low like a basket, I'm not a fan of the shape because I think it's more appropriate for a more mature audience. JMHO.

squire

 

[chialea]

I vote #1. #2 will wear relatively quickly, and #3 will probably be overpowering with such a large center diamond. #1 is the most simple and timeless.

 

[icelady]

I like number 1 as it is very different and elegant to my eye!

 

[katrina_33]

Thanks so much - this is exactly the kind of input I was looking for - I tend to forget about things like "timeless," and "comfortable" when thinking about rings, and just get wrapped up in "cool," or "different," which I think is a mistake when picking out something you're going to wear so regularly and for so long! This is really helpful.

I'm leaning toward #1 for its simplicity. It's a custom made setting, so if anyone can think of little tweaks they'd suggest I have made to it, suggest away! I think I would want the band a little thinner (top to bottom) for starters.

 

[valeria101]

#1 gets my vote...

The same maker seems to have developed this earlier version - and those prongs became smaller in the process (Example).

 

[newposter]

Since you asked for opinions... I love #1!

 

[katrina_33]

----------------
On 6/19/2004 2:26:43 PM valeria101 wrote:


#1 gets my vote...

The same maker seems to have developed this earlier version - and those prongs became smaller in the process (Example).


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

I like it with the sapphire too! Valeria, do you happen to know *approximately* how much their platinum mountings cost? It's not entierly a custom job since they've made the same ring at least twice before, so I would think that would effect the cost since there's less labor involved?

 

[hoorray]

I like #1. They are all nice but #2 is somehting I think I would get tired of and #3 is more antiquy than my preference.

 

[questionsRus]

i like number 2! it is neat.

 

[dbgaap]

i vote #1 and i agree, i would thin it out a bit.
#2 is just too much. (maybe if they just took out the surprise diamond on the side, it would help)
#3 isn't particularly unique looking, but it's pretty.

 

[hannah]

I vote #1 for its timeless simplicity.

#2 would work better for me if the "surprise" diamond was removed and the center stone put in a semi-bezel setting.

#3 would only work for me if I had two matching wedding bands to surround the e-ring on both sides, hence a more balanced (though chunky) look.

 

[diamonddoll]

I guess I really like things that are different. So I like #2. I'm not crazy about a round center with the trinaglular side stones. Just my humble opinion.

 

[KBerly]

I like #1 also, but definitely thinned out with smaller trillion sides...

 

[diamondlil]

This is really fun hearing everyone's opinion and why.




I love both #1 and #2. I'm not much into antique-looking jewelry, so #3 would be out.




To choose just one setting, I would also go with #1. I love the way the side stones are set into the metal. Actually, I am having a new e-ring setting made for me now (should be done in a couple weeks) that has pears set into a yellow gold ring in a similar fashion. The only thing I see that may need a change is that a wedding band will not sit flush with the e-ring. I like a wedding ring that I can wear alone or flush with my e-ring, and in this case, the basket the center stone is set in extends beyond the width of the ring. Is this pic from www.tradeshop.com? It looks similar to a few I have seen at that site. If it is not one of theirs, check out the site because you may find one very similar with a head for the center stone that will allow a flush-fitting wedding ring.




DiamondLil

 

[diamondlil]

Here is an example of what I meant if it did not make sense in my last post. Although this ring shows hearts set into the metal, the head in the center is designed in such a way to accept a flush-fitting wedding ring. If you changed the hearts to trillions and set them higher on the sides to meet up with your round center, it would be similar to the pic you posted. Hope that makes sense.




DiamondLil

 

[moremoremore]

I love #1!!!!! I remember it from DT....it's the most amazing setting!

 

[finerthings]

I vote #1, and agree that I would thin out the shank some. Very beautiful, sophisticated and timeless choice.

 

[bling]

Hmm..nice choices! i never would have thought to pick #2 until i saw someone on this board get one with a radiant sent in it i think..and her pics were stunning! so #2 is very nice...however, i like #3 the best for its classic, almost antique look. its elegant and sophisticated look dont look too trendy, but thats just my humble opinion. also, myabe im not the biggest trillions fan..but i like the idea of a three stone ring. hahah..if it were me..id go three stone with all rounds, or maybe fat pears, or traps on the side.. hehehe...i will keep dreaming! good luck..and it looks like you have some very nice choices!