Diamond Setting Question

[me1234]

I am looking into a setting where the diamonds on go all the way around, but I''ve been told that it is not the best idea to have them this way. Since the center stone is always on top, she will always be hitting the same stone underneath, and they will eventually dislodge. Is this true? Would it be safer/wiser to look at someting where the diamonds went half way around, especially with prong settings, similar to an eternity band? Thanks

 

[me1234]

Anyone?

 

[Mara]

read my posts about my ring..it's eternity setting and has stones all the way around. get it if you love it..don't worry about practicality. but i should note that i havent dislodged or broken out a stone and i've had it for about 7 months. i take it in to get checked every 6 months with my jeweler. plus i have it insured so there are no worries. though if you go this route, be sure the diamonds are prong set and not pave and that the metal is platinum. also be sure that the amount of metal is proportionate to the amount of stones in the setting. don't have a tiny little thin strip of platinum and baby prongs holding in all these stones. you need something a little more substantial for everyday use. lastly, she will not be banging her hand on things. i rarely bang my hand down palm flat on anything hard...so that's not really a worry.

of course diamonds all the way around IS NOT practical, is a diamond itself practical? are side stones at all practical? go with what you love and you'll be happy in the end.

 

[me1234]

Thanks Mara. With diamonds going all the way around, can the ring ever be re-sized if need be? Would it look 'funny' if I had the side stones go down about 2/3 of the way, and left a little space of just platinum towards the bottom?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Diamonds all the way around is classy, but diamonds two-thirds the way around is still classy and infinitely more practical.

They don't take the abuse that bottom diamonds get subjected to, and you can resize the ring as the years (and pounds) roll by.

 

[me1234]

So the actual look of the side stones going 2/3 of the way down would not look odd? I know she likes the stones all the way around, but it just doesn't seem practical, especialy since the setting I want is pave.

 

[trichrome]

Unless your fiance is missing her little finger,
she will never have the opportunity to look at
the side of her ring..
so you dont need diamonds going all the way around...

Trichrome.

 

[Mara]

We considered having stones halfway around...but we decided not to do it because the transition would look funny, as our stones were prong-set. If you are considering pave, I recommend you only get the stones halfway around and have the setting taper a little at the ending into a V. If you don't know what I mean...you may not have seen a setting like that. I have seen it in pictures and it is very flattering to end the pave that way rather than with a hard straight line (----). Pave will not stand up as well to everyday abuse like prong-set would...so I would definitely do halfway around...it look look very good as well.


(pave down the straight band and then it tapeers to the V..with normally one small stone at the bottom of the V)

 

[me1234]

Mara, thanks for the idea, but I'm not sure what you mean. Anywhere I could see a picture of it? It tapers at the bottom of the ring?

 

[Mara]

Here are a few examples of rings that I have...the first one (Mark Morrell) represents what I was thinking of most closely..but the other 2 are similar type examples. See what you like.

 

[Mara]

This one is an old platinum setting I found that I liked a while back...shows the graduated pave coming from the shoulders and tapering down the sides.

 

[Mara]

This is a ring I tried on when we were looking, I really liked the setting...but of course tastes change!

It has a slight graduated side..I think there are only 3 diamonds on each side, for a total of something like .15c...small taper at the end--you can see the V as it tapers off. It looks more elegant and elongates the vertical line of the band IMO.

 

[me1234]

Thanks for the pictures. The one I've got my eye is similar to a Scott Kay design. It has pave set on the sides with a tiny 'surprise' diamond where the X prong connect. I've seen it in person and really like it. Have you by any chance seen this?

 

[Mara]

No I remember you talking about that but I never saw a pic and I just recently got the SK catalog in the mail and it was not in there either. Maybe I am just missing it!

The third pict I posted had something like a surprise diamond....you can see it protruding. It gave the ring a beautiful look when viewed down from the TOP (where the stone would be) because it looked like the diamond was 'framed'. But in the end I thought the little surprise stone would hide some of the view of the stone through prongs etc.

I have seen SK designs with surprise diamonds though...they are very pretty. I particularly liked one that had yellow diamonds on the sides (two trillians) and then a surprise diamond under the stone on each side in the head.

 

[me1234]

Mara, go to solomonbrothers.com, and under Scott Kay Platinum,it's 73100 (4th down on page). What do think? I was thinking of somethin like this but the side stones going down further. I just want to make sure a diamond wedding band would sit flush next to it.

 

[diamondlil]

What a beautiful setting. The "surprise diamond" on the side will be covered with a wedding ring though. A wedding ring will sit flush as long as the head for the main stone is high enough. I like the diamonds all the way around. Very classy. My husband says it's his guarantee against my weight gain -- hehe!

Diamondlil

 

[me1234]

diamondlil, the wedding band that goes with that setting actually does sit flush, as that surprise diamond is above the first band of the enegagement ring. Do you know what I mean, kind of hard to explain, but I have seen both together. I just want to make sure they sit flush if I decide to get someone to create a variation of that type.

 

[Mara]

Here is a picture of the setting for those interested.

I really like it alot, but I am not a fan of the too-thick prongs...I don't like it when prongs take precedence over the power of the stone...personal opinion. But I love the pave and the surprise diamond is very cute. It looks like a pretty thick band, at least 3mm? Is that what she wants? Be sure as wearing thicker bands is a preference thing as well. Some may prefer around 2mm or 2.5mm but some do prefer the more 'power statement' type bands. Depends on what sorts of rings she likes to wear.

Very nice though. The pave in that ring seems to be a nice addition, I wouldn't extend it farther than that.

 

[Mara]

Also that setting reminded me of this one which I once considered...it's Vatche and this is a picture from WhiteFlash's site.

It has a similar pave setting (see the matching band), but the head itself is more x-prong than the other style..and there is no surprise diamond. Very similar though. The width of this band is slightly over 3mm I believe...I asked Lesley at some point in the past since we were considering it, but it was too thick for my taste, esp when paired with the ~3mm wedding ring...6mm+ of ring on my hand is not something I was interested in, though I know it is splitting hairs. My e-ring and wed ring together will be just slightly over 5mm.

 

[me1234]

Good point on the prongs, I definitely would like them a little thinner. Any pictures of ones that would work better? The band is thinner than 3mm, not sure exactly how thin though. I will probably still to 2-2.5. Let me now if you any pictures of prongs that I could use instead.

 

[Mara]

Not too sure if you can have the prongs modified on an already existing setting, it may weaken them? Someone else may know.

 

[me1234]

Mara, can you tell by looking at the picture if the side stones are bead set? Is that different than pave?

 

[me1234]

Anyone?

 

[Mara]

Bead set is essentially pave. Pave/bead has tiny stones held in place with beads of metal (usu plat...esp if the ring is plat!). So you probably have 2 or 3 beads for every stone or similar. Take a look at all the settings posted..you can see the stones vs the beads of metal if you look closely, but the effect when set is that the small stones sparkle and play off the metal so you don't see the metal at all but rather a 'glittering road' of diamonds...pave stones are sometimes also called 'melee' stones for being very tiny.

 

[me1234]

Mara, you posted the pic of the setting I was looking at, it's the post on 8/15 at 3pm picture. I think it is bead set, but I agree that it shouldn't take away from the 'road of diamonds' look.

 

[Mara]

Since pave is bead set...and vice versa...if it is bead set..it will still have the road of diamonds look. I think pave is a more modern term and bead set is more old fashioned..for vintage items.