Does my setting swallow my diamond?

[smilligan]

That is one of the most unique, interesting, and substantial rings that I've seen here. I love the carre cuts on the sides and the proportions to the center. I have to agree with Niel, though. The only thing that is keeping this ring from true greatness is the pave. I can't believe that I'm even saying that because I love pave, but it's just too much. It detracts from the setting, IMO, and makes the shank look "cheap". I'm not sure why, but it does. If they could make the same setting with a plain shank, I think it would be perfect. That said, I still prefer this setting over a solitaire.

 

[braga123]

That is one of the most unique, interesting, and substantial rings that I've seen here. I love the carre cuts on the sides and the proportions to the center. I have to agree with Niel, though. The only thing that is keeping this ring from true greatness is the pave. I can't believe that I'm even saying that because I love pave, but it's just too much. It detracts from the setting, IMO, and makes the shank look "cheap". I'm not sure why, but it does. If they could make the same setting with a plain shank, I think it would be perfect. That said, I still prefer this setting over a solitaire.

The pave is super delicate, not bulky or with lots of metal--which is one of the reasons I don't care for certain halo settings-- so I am no worried that it looks cheap.

Diamondseeker: Thanks for the visual. I wish you luck finding your forever setting. I didn't pay 5k+ or anywhere near that amount for this setting, so a custom setting is not an option....maybe adding sizing beads will do the trick.

 

[iluvdiamonds2]

I don't think it swallows your diamond, I think it makes the whole look look substantial. I don't like delicate bands generally speaking. If you are in doubt, maybe get a credit or something. I have been down that road before; make sure you LOVE it, not like it, not getting used to it, LOVE IT. If not, chuck it!

 

[smilligan]

That is one of the most unique, interesting, and substantial rings that I've seen here. I love the carre cuts on the sides and the proportions to the center. I have to agree with Niel, though. The only thing that is keeping this ring from true greatness is the pave. I can't believe that I'm even saying that because I love pave, but it's just too much. It detracts from the setting, IMO, and makes the shank look "cheap". I'm not sure why, but it does. If they could make the same setting with a plain shank, I think it would be perfect. That said, I still prefer this setting over a solitaire.

The pave is super delicate, not bulky or with lots of metal--which is one of the reasons I don't care for certain halo settings-- so I am no worried that it looks cheap.

Diamondseeker: Thanks for the visual. I wish you luck finding your forever setting. I didn't pay 5k+ or anywhere near that amount for this setting, so a custom setting is not an option....maybe adding sizing beads will do the trick.

I think I may have worded that poorly. I don't mean it looks cheap as in low cost. I mean it looks breakable. The thinness of the shank is accentuated by the pave, IMO. I love delicate pave and halos (which is how I made my fiance's ring), but proportions are just as important. Regardless, your opinion of it is the one that matters.

 

[braga123]

Smilligan, we have different definitions of delicate. I saw your fiance's ring and I would consider the melee on it to be bulkier than my pave which is probably why u consider it breakable bc your ring seems to be heavy and busy with the metal. In fact your melee blurs your diamond and creates an overall cluster look IMO but that's the beauty of this site, we all have different tastes.

 

[Andelain]

I think it's lovely and proportional - I'm not a fan of 'bobblehead' rings with huge stones on thin shanks. My personal taste doesn't favour large stones for that reason but that setting carries the large stone well, IMO.

You said it better than I could have. This right here is the reason I wear a .84 when I could have had something considerably larger. I love that wide band, I think it's a great balance for that stone.

 

[smilligan]

Smilligan, we have different definitions of delicate. I saw your fiance's ring and I would consider the melee on it to be bulkier than my pave which is probably why u consider it breakable bc your ring seems to be heavy and busy with the metal. In fact your melee blurs your diamond and creates an overall cluster look IMO but that's the beauty of this sit, we all have different tastes.

That's an interesting observation, but it doesn't really relate to what I was saying. I was referring to the proportion of your center stone to the width of the shank, which is accentuated by the pave (making it look thinner). Still, I don't think my fiance's ring is "heavy" at all. The shank is 1.8 mm with 0.5 point melee. There is also very little metal, unless you're referring to the gallery? The main difference, IMO, would be that your center is significantly larger than the one in her ring. The halo and the center do blur together, though, which I prefer. I wouldn't say it was a "cluster" ring, though. That, to me, suggests a group of similarly sized stones. Anyway, I hope I didn't offend you. I agree that everyone has different tastes and I can appreciate that beauty is subjective. That's why diamonds are so interesting.

 

[smilligan]

I can no longer edit the above post, but I should say that I'm referring to the bottom half of the ring (where the split shank is separated by open space). The top view looks great and is proportional to my eyes.

 

[Acinom]

Braga, to add:
Every ring will look better when it is properly sized! I am not sure sizing beads can bridge the gap. I am a size 5.5 and my ring is sized 5.75 to allow for swelling. I cannot imagine wearing it a full size larger unless you are wearing several stacking rings with a broader shank and yours is very delicate!!! Losing such a beautiful ring is not an option so that alone would be a reason to bring it back unfortunately. I cannot believe your jeweller did not advice against it. Wearing it on your middle finger could be an option in theory but it looks better on your ring finger and since it's an e-ring, you probably want to wear it on that finger.

If you decide to have a new ring made, several posters seem to agree that the same ring with plain metal would be great actually the same idea but without the melee) like VC's ring that DS posted. However, your current setting is unique!

 

[hippi_pixi]

It's a lovely setting! I think it looks fantastic. i would say don't return it. if after a while it doesn"t grow on you then consider using it for a colored stone RHR.

being too big would bother me. if the size bothered you and it can't be resized at least keep the sidestones they're one of a kind

 

[GreenBling]

GORGEOUS! the total look is just breathtaking! Having said that, i do think what makes the ring unique also takes away from the center, not so much as making it appear smaller, just take attention away. But then photos often don't do these beauties justice as it is only 2 dimensional but in real life it might look different.

 

[lknvrb4]

I really love your setting and saved your pics as one of my favorites. I have considered this look for my cushion. Its bold and blingy and so very unique, enjoy it!

 

[Laila619]

Smilligan, we have different definitions of delicate. I saw your fiance's ring and I would consider the melee on it to be bulkier than my pave which is probably why u consider it breakable bc your ring seems to be heavy and busy with the metal. In fact your melee blurs your diamond and creates an overall cluster look IMO but that's the beauty of this site, we all have different tastes.

I disagree. I think Smilligan's fiancee's ring is perfect!!

 

[MissGotRocks]

No, I absolutely do not think your setting dwarfs the stone. I think it is very beautiful paired together! I would second the others though to resize the ring to fit your finger. Sizing too small or too large does not enhance any ring IMO.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I don't think it swallows your diamond but the overall effect is much more of an ensemble piece, whereas a solitaire or thinner band would make the stone more of the solo star.

It's a beautiful ring and you wear it well.

 

[movie zombie]

no, it definitely does not!
I think it is a very complimentary style all around and well balanced.
and I love it just as it is on your finger!

 

[DonnaH]

I love it. Its unique and fabulous

 

[yssie]

I think your setting is very unique and I don't think it "dwarfs" the stone at all - it's a very different look from the usual solitaire on band and different types of settings will appeal to different people!

That said, I most definitely think you would benefit from sizing the setting down - a full size is a HUGE difference, much more than I'd want to try to make up for with sizing beads, and I most definitely think the stone will look noticeably larger in a properly fitted setting.

Think about it this way... we judge size in terms of context - a photo of a diamond on a plain black background doesn't tell us anything about how big it is! But add a finger and a ring and now we have three "ways" to judge stone size:N/S from tip of finger to palm, E/W from side of the finger to side of the finger, and E/W from edge-to-edge of the width of the ring. Keeping the finger size the same and the diamond size the same, a larger ring size means that the diamond covers less of the E/W edge-to-edge ring distance.



I think with a thinner plain-shank solitaire the ring size makes less difference to how big or small the stone looks because a plain shank doesn't have that bright white LOOKATMELOOKATME effect that melee does, and a thin shank obscures less of the finger underneath so it's easy to focus more on how much of the width of the finger the stone covers. Diamonds - even melee - have more depth than plain metal so pave shanks require more outer E/W edge-to-edge distance for the same inner diameter (ring size), and a wider shank obscures more of the finger underneath, so having a sized-too-big wide pave shank is sorta the worst of all options in terms of making the centerstone looking as large as possible! O course that sort of logic ignores any other aesthetic concerns and personally I'm not a solitaire person at all so...

Long story short - I really think you need to have the ring sized to fit you properly to make a fair judgment of how you feel, because right now there are other variables that are probably skewing your perspective.



I have to say that I don't think much of your response to smilligan. He chose his words poorly and clarified as soon as he realised he'd offended you, and your retaliatory and unsolicited summary of his fiancee's ring that was clearly designed to insult (in the context of the style he chose, obviously "bulky", "busy", and "heavy" could well be flattering in another context) was IMO in poor taste. But to each his own, I suppose.

 

[braga123]

Yessie: Thanks for your input, but I think that calling me out is also in poor taste. Now this thread might become one where everyone chimes in after reading your post. You are a highly regarded poster, so I am sure people will come to your defense. The reality is that I used the adjectives that I found appropriate for his ring and you are applying their connotations as you perceive them. I have owned halos like Smilligan's fiance's before, and I have come on this forum with questions about them and these terms have been used to describe those rings. I will contact the moderator to shut down this thread for fear that others might have the same interpretation. The reason that I was so candid with my opinion of his fiance's ring is that he made a reference to it himself, therefore, it was not unsolicited or retaliatory. If I had gone on his SMTB thread (all 3 of them) and then insulted his ring, that would be retaliatory.

 

[yssie]

You are correct. My opinion on that exchange was equally unsolicited and I oughtn't have voiced it.

I hope whatever you decide to do re. this particular thread you will consider re-sizing your current setting before pursuing a different style, as I do feel it will make a visible difference.

 

[Niel]

Yessie: Thanks for your input, but I think that calling me out is also in poor taste. Now this thread might become one where everyone chimes in after reading your post. You are a highly regarded poster, so I am sure people will come to your defense. The reality is that I used the adjectives that I found appropriate for his ring and you are applying their connotations as you perceive them. I have owned halos like Smilligan's fiance's before, and I have come on this forum with questions about them and these terms have been used to describe those rings. I will contact the moderator to shut down this thread for fear that others might have the same interpretation. The reason that I was so candid with my opinion of his fiance's ring is that he made a reference to it himself, therefore, it was not unsolicited or retaliatory. If I had gone on his SMTB thread (all 3 of them) and then insulted his ring, that would be retaliatory.

I got the same impression for your post. He made a comment that seemed someone insulting, though he quicky corrected it, and you in turn made insulting comments about his. His comments were to be expected as sometimes when you post a thread asking what jewelry enthusiasts honestly think of your ring, you'll get positive and negative feedback.

He didn't post such a thread, so throwing negative comments at him seems unwarranted and unnecessary.


I'm sorry if you got some comments you didn't like or want to hear. At the end of the day. It matters what you like and what you want to do with your ring. I hope you love whatever you decide

 

[pyramid]

I don't see your setting as swallowing the diamond, so I voted No. I especially like the photo showing the size view. Beautiful
ring.

 

[braga123]

Niel...I really wish you had read the previous post where I requested to close the thread. Smilligan and I were exchanging. Definitions of delicate and I disagreed with his and used his ring as an example...end of story...no need to stir the pot. He seems OK with my response BC he too is aware that he is opening himself to comments he might not like and I don't think he asked gir anyone to rush to his defense.

 

[pyramid]

Oh and we all like different. I love this setting here but I also love 'bobblehead' settings too. Doesn't mean though that I love
all settings.

 

[pyramid]

Yssie

I loved your post with the diagrams about diamond band versus plain metal on the solitaire and the ring size being too big.


I was just thinking last night, that I would like a 3 stone sometime, about 0.80 centre and 0.40 side stones, I already
have a small 3 stone that is 0.30 centre and 0.15 side stones. I was thinking last night that maybe it would not suit
me though. I have a large solitaire that looks fine though. I have very short fingers and I would want it in a medium
to high setting as I don't like low set for this style. Do you think that the theory with the diamond side stones like the
diamond band on this thread, is the reason I am feeling it wouldn't suit me. Maybe I just have a complex about my
very short fingers although small size fingers. I am not worried about the centre stone looking smaller just that I
think the area from the ring to the point of my fingers will look smaller. I also have a wide hand. I just wonder if
a large 3 stone would not suit me although I like the smaller one. Anyone else think this way?

 

[Niel]

Niel...I really wish you had read the previous post where I requested to close the thread. Smilligan and I were exchanging. Definitions of delicate and I disagreed with his and used his ring as an example...end of story...no need to stir the pot. He seems OK with my response BC he too is aware that he is opening himself to comments he might not like and I don't think he asked gir anyone to rush to his defense.

I did read it.

And no one needs to ask me to defend them.

Did mean to upset. I think you're ring is lovely. Very unique. If you need to shut it down though I'm sure the admins will if you report concern.

 

[smilligan]

Laila, Yssie, and Niel - thank you for the support and comments. In truth, I felt the same way about braga's post at first. Unfortunately, it's easy to misinterpret words on the internet because you can't hear a person's tone or see their body language from a computer screen. When I re-read my posts, I realized that they seemed negative and rude, which was not my intent. Even my second post didn't really get my point across. Either way, it's almost impossible to read something (especially involving double meanings and/or sarcasm) from someone you don't know and not take it the wrong way. I won't comment about this ring again since I'm failing to write out my thoughts in a forum-friendly manner, but I see no reason why the thread should be closed. I think that the OP has gotten some great opinions/suggestions.

 

[marcy]

Your ring and diamond are gorgeous. The diamond would pop or be more prominent in a setting with less bling or in a solitaire but it wouldn't have the overall presence you have now. It is a personal preference.

 

[soxfan]

that setting is the bomb. I wouldn't change it…..

 

[Sky56]

Ring looks great and properly proportional to my eyes. I am partial to wider, sturdy settings and to having rings which don't fit loose.
The only thing that looks not right to me is the ring's need to be sized down to fit your finger. A snug ring is a safer ring too. Enjoy. Your ring is pretty and blingy.