Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Did you regret changing your setting?

Did you regret changing your setting?


  • Total voters
    33

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
Hi All!
Let’s talk about setting regrets! I know some of you have mentioned you changed your setting for whatever reason and regretted it. And as we know, settings can be costly and a quick way of having your money flush down the toilet. Now that I’m looking for side stones and purchased a pair-I’m wondering, will I regret it? Will I regret going from a solitaire to a 3 stone? If you have done this can you share your thoughts and experiences?

Both looks are classic - I know, but to me me there’s something so special about a classic solitaire.

What are your thoughts?
 

AllAboardTheBlingTrain

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,099
If you think you might regret changing out your setting, I would definitely recommend keeping and not trashing the old one, unless it was an inexpensive solitaire setting. Then you could always change it back after some time and use the other setting for a different gem, for example.

If you do want a 3 stone setting though, but you’re torn between that and your solitaire, maybe you’d like a 3-stone wrap? I know this exists somewhere on PS... basically a poster had a wrap/guard made for her solitaire which was basically two side stones, and when she wore it with her solitaire it looked like a 3 stone ring. I thought that was a really clever idea!
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
If you think you might regret changing out your setting, I would definitely recommend keeping and not trashing the old one, unless it was an inexpensive solitaire setting. Then you could always change it back after some time and use the other setting for a different gem, for example.

If you do want a 3 stone setting though, but you’re torn between that and your solitaire, maybe you’d like a 3-stone wrap? I know this exists somewhere on PS... basically a poster had a wrap/guard made for her solitaire which was basically two side stones, and when she wore it with her solitaire it looked like a 3 stone ring. I thought that was a really clever idea!

I’ve seen the enhancer if that’s what you are referring to from David Klass. It’s so pretty! I’ve even debated doing that too. I’m definitely keeping the solitaire setting since it’s platinum and very sturdy.
 

Cerulean

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
1,623
I'd keep the solitaire setting and plop a pretty H&A garnet in there in case I ever changed my mind and would wear it as an RHR

I went from a solitaire to a 3-stone and am very happy with it. My center stone was changed too - but I realized that I liked a little more visual complexity than a solitaire offers on my own hand - but it is still a classic. I switched about 6 months ago - so ask me in 10yrs hah!
 

MillieLou

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
362
This is a very personal opinion, but I have never seen a setting I like more than a really simple, well made solitaire. I think yours is just beautiful. The 3 stone is lovely too, but to me, it loses something special.

I often see people on here change from their temp settings to more elaborate ones, and privately wish they'd kept the temp.

I'm probably weird though.
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
23,270
Can you purchase an inexpensive 3 stone in your size range to wear for a while to see if you like it or not?


 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
Can you purchase an inexpensive 3 stone in your size range to wear for a while to see if you like it or not?



That’s actually a great idea! Thank you. I may do that.
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
This is a very personal opinion, but I have never seen a setting I like more than a really simple, well made solitaire. I think yours is just beautiful. The 3 stone is lovely too, but to me, it loses something special.

I often see people on here change from their temp settings to more elaborate ones, and privately wish they'd kept the temp.

I'm probably weird though.

I completely understand what you are saying. I love a simple solitaire too. I love how delicate the prongs are even tho you can’t see that in photo, but in person you barely notice them which is how I like it.
 

Dee*Jay

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
13,731
I recall Whiteflash made an amazing wrap for someone’s solitaire too.

Was that for Woodbug...? I just did a search but can't find it. Maybe I'm misremembering whose ring it was.

FWIW, I love the wrap idea!
 

karendiben

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
50
Hi All!
Let’s talk about setting regrets! I know some of you have mentioned you changed your setting for whatever reason and regretted it. And as we know, settings can be costly and a quick way of having your money flush down the toilet. Now that I’m looking for side stones and purchased a pair-I’m wondering, will I regret it? Will I regret going from a solitaire to a 3 stone? If you have done this can you share your thoughts and experiences?

Both looks are classic - I know, but to me me there’s something so special about a classic solitaire.

What are your thoughts?

I just changed out my solitaire for a 3 stone (kept the same center stone) last month, so I’m not far enough into the transition for my assessment to be truly useful to you, but I will say this: I am over the moon with my new setting while still being aware of the tradeoffs I made. My center stone (2.02) does look much smaller than it did as a solitaire, even though I went with smaller side stones (0.52) than the standard ratio in order not to take away from the center. The stone also looks smaller and the ring less flashy because the whole thing sits lower on my finger by about 3mm than my old solitaire (which was 9mm off the finger). But even with these “losses,” it was a net positive, by far. Adding the side stones added tons more sparkle, even if it is a little more “big mass of sparkly” vs “one specific area of sparkly.” And I just think the whole look is more in line with what I wanted—a little less fussy, but simultaneously a little more sophisticated (to me).

The pic of the new one is from a little closer, so it does look pretty much the same size in the first two pics, but you can see in relation to my knuckle it looks smaller (I think that’s mostly because of the height differential, but from a distance, it does look quite a bit smaller because the sides of the main stone visually blend with the side stones so you can’t see the full diameter side to side).
3CB6741E-EC70-4B2A-8BEB-774F6E8374E5.jpeg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
I just changed out my solitaire for a 3 stone (kept the same center stone) last month, so I’m not far enough into the transition for my assessment to be truly useful to you, but I will say this: I am over the moon with my new setting while still being aware of the tradeoffs I made. My center stone (2.02) does look much smaller than it did as a solitaire, even though I went with smaller side stones (0.52) than the standard ratio in order not to take away from the center. The stone also looks smaller and the ring less flashy because the whole thing sits lower on my finger by about 3mm than my old solitaire (which was 9mm off the finger). But even with these “losses,” it was a net positive, by far. Adding the side stones added tons more sparkle, even if it is a little more “big mass of sparkly” vs “one specific area of sparkly.” And I just think the whole look is more in line with what I wanted—a little less fussy, but simultaneously a little more sophisticated (to me).
3CB6741E-EC70-4B2A-8BEB-774F6E8374E5.jpeg

Thank you so much for your review especially since your experience is so recent. Gorgeous rings-both of them! Now you have me thinking tho bc my center stone is 1.02 and I DO NOT want it to look smaller or get lost with the side stones. They are .40 each.
 

Honeybasil

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
362
Oh, do the three stone!! I’m dying for one, but I have an OEC center and it’s just too hard/expensive to find the right side stones. Keep your solitaire setting - you can always go back. But I bet you’ll love the three stone!
 

karendiben

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
50
Thank you so much for your review especially since your experience is so recent. Gorgeous rings-both of them! Now you have me thinking tho bc my center stone is 1.02 and I DO NOT want it to look smaller or get lost with the side stones. They are .40 each.

One thing that makes it really tricky is that when you see them in the mock-up (just holding them next to your stone), you’re almost always seeing them with more space between than in a traditional 3 stone setting. And the way the prongs are oriented in the new setting (on all 3 stones) can really have a dramatic effect on how the stones’ shapes/size look visually. I think the advice about getting a CZ in the same dimensions (in terms of stone diameters) that sets them close up against each other will be really helpful—wear it for a while and see what you think. Or look for a setting with more space between the three stones if you want to preserve that visual distinction. A lot of vintage style settings put the stones a bit farther apart (and higher on the finger). I wanted mine close together because my finger is small and I didn’t want it to look disproportionate on my hand, but you could certainly pick something that makes them feel slightly more distinct, and then the shape and size of your center will be more preserved.
 

diamondringlover

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
3,981
I went from a thinnish 2mm 14K band that came with the diamond when we bought years ago to a heavy comfort fit 2mm 18K band...it now matches my 5 stone which is 18K...
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
10,868
I just changed out my solitaire for a 3 stone (kept the same center stone) last month, so I’m not far enough into the transition for my assessment to be truly useful to you, but I will say this: I am over the moon with my new setting while still being aware of the tradeoffs I made. My center stone (2.02) does look much smaller than it did as a solitaire, even though I went with smaller side stones (0.52) than the standard ratio in order not to take away from the center. The stone also looks smaller and the ring less flashy because the whole thing sits lower on my finger by about 3mm than my old solitaire (which was 9mm off the finger). But even with these “losses,” it was a net positive, by far. Adding the side stones added tons more sparkle, even if it is a little more “big mass of sparkly” vs “one specific area of sparkly.” And I just think the whole look is more in line with what I wanted—a little less fussy, but simultaneously a little more sophisticated (to me).

The pic of the new one is from a little closer, so it does look pretty much the same size in the first two pics, but you can see in relation to my knuckle it looks smaller (I think that’s mostly because of the height differential, but from a distance, it does look quite a bit smaller because the sides of the main stone visually blend with the side stones so you can’t see the full diameter side to side).
3CB6741E-EC70-4B2A-8BEB-774F6E8374E5.jpeg

I just changed out my solitaire for a 3 stone (kept the same center stone) last month, so I’m not far enough into the transition for my assessment to be truly useful to you, but I will say this: I am over the moon with my new setting while still being aware of the tradeoffs I made. My center stone (2.02) does look much smaller than it did as a solitaire, even though I went with smaller side stones (0.52) than the standard ratio in order not to take away from the center. The stone also looks smaller and the ring less flashy because the whole thing sits lower on my finger by about 3mm than my old solitaire (which was 9mm off the finger). But even with these “losses,” it was a net positive, by far. Adding the side stones added tons more sparkle, even if it is a little more “big mass of sparkly” vs “one specific area of sparkly.” And I just think the whole look is more in line with what I wanted—a little less fussy, but simultaneously a little more sophisticated (to me).

The pic of the new one is from a little closer, so it does look pretty much the same size in the first two pics, but you can see in relation to my knuckle it looks smaller (I think that’s mostly because of the height differential, but from a distance, it does look quite a bit smaller because the sides of the main stone visually blend with the side stones so you can’t see the full diameter side to side).
3CB6741E-EC70-4B2A-8BEB-774F6E8374E5.jpeg

Thanks for the detailed pics @karendiben . I like your set before and after. Btw, what size are your fingers?

The solitaire and three stone are just two very different looks. I have always loved the three stone look because it provides a very balanced look on the finger, with sparkle all across the width, rather than just a big sparkle in the center and little or no sparkle on the side. It may seem too "much" for some people, whereas others find the balance of three stones more appealing, and even in some ways less obvious.
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
10,868
Although I have always loved three stone rings, I've also always been afraid to commit. Initially I was worried that it would be "too much" so I've stuck with solitaire type settings, solitaires with pave on the shank, shoulders, bezeled, , etc. But even with a 3 carat stone, not small at all, with small diamonds on the shoulders, I still felt the ring was unbalanced. So my next setting will be a 3 stone. I've tried enough varieties of solitaires and yet I still yearn for a 3 stone. I have always felt in my heart that a three stone would be my final iteration of my ering. Whether that will be true is still to be determined. What is funny is that I have never tried on an actual 3 stone that is just right, except for a fake one I bought to test drive. That fake one I liked a lot and definitely felt just right. I think a lot depends on the maker of the ring. It has to be just the right height, angle, tilt, tuck, and the right size of sidestones for you and your finger size. And in the end, it's still a gamble, unless of course you happen to have tried the exact center and sides by the maker you want.

Good luck! Hope your ring turns out exactly right.
 

karendiben

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
50
Thanks for the detailed pics @karendiben . I like your set before and after. Btw, what size are your fingers?

The solitaire and three stone are just two very different looks. I have always loved the three stone look because it provides a very balanced look on the finger, with sparkle all across the width, rather than just a big sparkle in the center and little or no sparkle on the side. It may seem too "much" for some people, whereas others find the balance of three stones more appealing, and even in some ways less obvious.

I definitely concur on “in some ways less obvious.” It does seem paradoxical, but I’ve noticed it too.

As to your question, I’m a size 3.5, ring is a size 4 with sizing beads because my knuckle is larger.
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
Although I have always loved three stone rings, I've also always been afraid to commit. Initially I was worried that it would be "too much" so I've stuck with solitaire type settings, solitaires with pave on the shank, shoulders, bezeled, , etc. But even with a 3 carat stone, not small at all, with small diamonds on the shoulders, I still felt the ring was unbalanced. So my next setting will be a 3 stone. I've tried enough varieties of solitaires and yet I still yearn for a 3 stone. I have always felt in my heart that a three stone would be my final iteration of my ering. Whether that will be true is still to be determined. What is funny is that I have never tried on an actual 3 stone that is just right, except for a fake one I bought to test drive. That fake one I liked a lot and definitely felt just right. I think a lot depends on the maker of the ring. It has to be just the right height, angle, tilt, tuck, and the right size of sidestones for you and your finger size. And in the end, it's still a gamble, unless of course you happen to have tried the exact center and sides by the maker you want.

Good luck! Hope your ring turns out exactly right.

This is my concern. You gave me something to think about. I’m not a technical person and very laid back by nature. I’m concerned it will be too flat or too straight across and look like a RHR. I also don’t like a lot of prongs and thick tab like looking prongs. I don’t know how to say all that without it all getting lost in translation.
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
One thing that makes it really tricky is that when you see them in the mock-up (just holding them next to your stone), you’re almost always seeing them with more space between than in a traditional 3 stone setting. And the way the prongs are oriented in the new setting (on all 3 stones) can really have a dramatic effect on how the stones’ shapes/size look visually. I think the advice about getting a CZ in the same dimensions (in terms of stone diameters) that sets them close up against each other will be really helpful—wear it for a while and see what you think. Or look for a setting with more space between the three stones if you want to preserve that visual distinction. A lot of vintage style settings put the stones a bit farther apart (and higher on the finger). I wanted mine close together because my finger is small and I didn’t want it to look disproportionate on my hand, but you could certainly pick something that makes them feel slightly more distinct, and then the shape and size of your center will be more preserved.

Good post! I never thought of the many different designs. I’d like to see some vintage style ones only bc I like the idea of stones being a bit apart. As mentioned before I don’t want my stone to look smaller.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
56,962
My original engagement ring was 1 ct. My first attempt at an upgrade was to try it in a three stone setting. Thankfully I did a little research and realized the jeweler was drastically overcharging for the setting with side stones and returned it. What I will say is that with a 1 ct center, adding side stones has a dramatic effect due to the additional finger coverage. I ended up getting a new larger diamond instead of making a 3 stone ring, but I still consider adding sides to my current stone because I think a 3 stone is so pretty!

However, what I see often here is that people like whatever they don't have. Some people miss a solitaire and go back. Others change settings multiple times. I have had my stone in a temporary solitaire for 7.5 years now due to the difficulty of choosing one to stick with permanently!
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
Oh, do the three stone!! I’m dying for one, but I have an OEC center and it’s just too hard/expensive to find the right side stones. Keep your solitaire setting - you can always go back. But I bet you’ll love the three stone!

3 Stone OEC ring would be divine!
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
56,962
This is my concern. You gave me something to think about. I’m not a technical person and very laid back by nature. I’m concerned it will be too flat or too straight across and look like a RHR. I also don’t like a lot of prongs and thick tab like looking prongs. I don’t know how to say all that without it all getting lost in translation.

In this case, you have to find one you DO like so a ringmaker can duplicate it. Or preferably get that ringmaker who made the one you like to make you one. Almost all the well known ringmakers here have made three stone rings.
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
My original engagement ring was 1 ct. My first attempt at an upgrade was to try it in a three stone setting. Thankfully I did a little research and realized the jeweler was drastically overcharging for the setting with side stones and returned it. What I will say is that with a 1 ct center, adding side stones has a dramatic effect due to the additional finger coverage. I ended up getting a new larger diamond instead of making a 3 stone ring, but I still consider adding sides to my current stone because I think a 3 stone is so pretty!

However, what I see often here is that people like whatever they don't have. Some people miss a solitaire and go back. Others change settings multiple times. I have had my stone in a temporary solitaire for 7.5 years now due to the difficulty of choosing one to stick with permanently!

In my first marriage I also had a solitaire but the band was pave so it gave it a little something extra. That’s exactly what I want @diamondseeker2006 ...finger coverage!
 

diamondsR4eVR

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
955
In this case, you have to find one you DO like so a ringmaker can duplicate it. Or preferably get that ringmaker who made the one you like to make you one. Almost all the well known ringmakers here have made three stone rings.

The side stones I picked are from IDJ. They gave me a great price on side stones and to make the ring for me. At least I think so! I asked to see the stones in person before committing to a ring.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Jewelry for Women in their 20s
    Jewelry for Women in their 20s
    Our Favorite Jewels from the 2021 Golden Globes
    Our Favorite Jewels from the 2021 Golden Globes
    Paris Hilton is Engaged
    Paris Hilton is Engaged

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top