shape
carat
color
clarity

Does the setting affect the performance of a diamond?

Do you think YOUR SETTING affects the performance of your diamond.

  • A. Obviously.

    Votes: 16 69.6%
  • B. Nope, it is what it is.

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • Total voters
    23

braga123

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
633
OK, I am not going to lie. I have had my diamond in a solitaire for almost 2 months now. At first, I was completely infatuated with it. It made my stone stand out! It shone so much light on it! I was in heaven and quite enjoying my temporary setting.

Backstory, skip if you would like
You might have read the issues that I had with my previous setting [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-my-setting-swallow-my-diamond.196694/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/does-my-setting-swallow-my-diamond.196694/[/URL]
so for now, since I plan to reuse the same side stones, I need to make sure that I get my finger size accurate, but since I am losing weight, I will probably have to wait a year. My finger keeps shrinking!

But for the past 2 weeks, my solitaire seems to be showcasing the less favorable attributes of my diamond. Such as color. My stone is EGL cert, graded a J, but I knew that when I purchased it, it would be a few grades lower. EXCEPT IT HAD NEVER BOTHERED ME BEFORE. Really. In my previous setting, the color was not an issue.

Neither was the cut! My stone is a transitional cut. And in the previous setting, it looked so beautiful, but my main concern was whether the stone looked too small in the setting.In this setting, I am slowly falling out of love with it.

I recently found the perfect setting for my OEC. It took 2 attempts, but I finally got it right. I really think that the setting enhances my stone and makes it feel at home. In the 2 previous attempts, I was forcing my OEC to do a MRB job, and it just wasn't.

So I think that I have learned that my transitional will looks its best in a vintage=like setting. Can any experts chime in? Am I delusional here? Am I reaching the wrong conclusion?

Also, how do transitionals do in halos?

TIA
 
I voted "obviously," but then realized that maybe I didn't understand exactly what you meant by performance. :| To me, performance is based on grade of cut (for the overall light return, sparkle factor, ect...). So it doesn't seem like a setting should affect that -- as the view of it's cut would be seen face up anyway.

I don't think the setting so much affects the performance of a stone, but can affect the perception of color/tint. What I mean is... a setting that exposes the side profile of the stone (i.e. solitaire, open gallery, etc) will show more tint in a diamond than if it were in a setting in which the diamond would only be viewed face up (halos, closed galleries). The only exception that I can think of would be a setting in which the diamond is covered a little more or set really deep like it's in a bowl, or like a bezel that's super thick and hides a lot of the stone??

So I think settings can "camouflage" or change the perception of certain things. I have a J colored stone in a halo and it's very white (only seen face up due to the setting), but I know I wouldn't be happy with it in something that would show the sides... it wouldn't be "as white" as it's perceived to be in my current setting, KWIM? :))
 
Oh! ...and I think a transitional in a halo would look FAB! :love:
 
I have a transitional and it will be in a new setting - the halo - so I guess we will have to wait and see!
 
I don't necessarily think it is as much of a performance issue as it is seeing the diamond in the most flattering setting. Just like if a beautiful model is in a men's sweat suit, it does not show her off as would a beautiful designer gown! I prefer transitionals, OEC's, antique cushions, etc. in antique style settings or delicate halos for the contrast. I still have my AVR in a solitaire because I haven't settled on a permanent setting, but I know it would complete the look and enhance the appearance of my diamond to have the right setting.
 
*double post*

(Oh, and I didn't vote above because I felt I had another explanation. I love transitionals and think you need to try the stone in different settings before going forward with the other project.)
 
IMO, the setting plays a crucial role. The metal color, the amount of contrast it provides, the amount of light it allows in. I haven't had too many settings, but I did have a low-color diamond in yellow gold prongs vs platinum bezel. The bezel helped to mask color (it kinda smoothed it out) and provided great contrast for the patterning of the OEC. But it also made the stone look more metallic. The prong setting allowed the stone to glow a lot, but didnt hide the color.

For a halo, I'd consider what contrast with whiter melee would do for the color of your stone.

So many things to consider. That's why I find settings so overwhelming :shock:
 
Is the melee in your current setting higher in color than your center stone? If so this may be contributing to why your transitional is appearing to have more warmth than before? If you do consider a halo than I would make sure the melee is closer in color otherwise you will have the same issue. Another consideration is that the platinum metal may be also too much of a contrast for you. Have you considered unplated white gold?
Your setting will definitely effect it's performance . In your previous setting light was coming in from all angles. In the current setting it is only from the top. If you bezel it I'd choose a setting with a thinner bezel.
 
IMO,I think a tension setting will give the best performance to any diamond.
 
I think it depends on a whole range of things. Generally the type of setting does impact the performance of a diamond. There are some old cuts for example that look better in bezels and halos because it hides sins or it makes the contrast pattern pop more, there are others that can look lifeless and look better in prong style settings that lift them up which allow more light in at the sides rather than just top down.

Flower type transitionals with a thin petalled flower look good in different settings than fat arrowed transitionals or ones with chunky checkerboardy style facets.

I think yours is a thin petalled flower style stone?

I have a high J coloured transitional in a F/G coloured halo and it actually makes the diamond look more tinted not less tinted.

What did you do with the Carre cut setting, is it for sale? I really liked that setting.
 
Thanks, everyone.

still have the Carre setting and will revisit its redesign in the future.

I went to my jeweler today and switched my solitaire back to my very first platinum setting because I really missed how it showcased thed facets. I am back to this!

img_20131108_071222.jpg
 
img_20131111_201640.jpg
 
A leaky stone or shallow stone may benefit more from being set up high in prongs, because that lets light in from the pavilion. I think choice of setting doesn't affect the performance of modern superideal H&A RBs much at all. Other cuts, older cuts, fanices, etc. might be more affected.
 
There is a reason it used to live in that setting. It now looks a lot larger on your finger than the Carre cut setting did with sidestones - go back and compare your own pics you will hopefully see what I am seeing. More prongs makes it look larger and both shows off this stone more and protects the diamond more as well.

Honestly I think you should leave it in that, I love the Carre cut setting and you obviously did too, so get a coloured stone or something else for that and wear it as a right hand ring.
 
TC1987|1392602465|3616668 said:
A leaky stone or shallow stone may benefit more from being set up high in prongs, because that lets light in from the pavilion. I think choice of setting doesn't affect the performance of modern superideal H&A RBs much at all. Other cuts, older cuts, fanices, etc. might be more affected.

Most genuine Old Cuts do have some leakage and a lot of transitionals are shallow and have big tables. That is why sometimes they do benefit from prong settings.
 
Of your settings... This one was my favorite... :love: The diamond looks huge and the star of the show!
 
I think you're finding that the setting will definitely affect the overall "look" of a stone. I liked your stone in the Carre setting, I thought that the uniqueness of the setting was a beautiful platform for the uniqueness of the stone, but settings are so personal!

You mentioned noticing the color in your stone more often now than you did before, but are you also looking at your stone more now than you did in the past? I know I pay a lot closer attention to my new setting than I ever did w/ my old setting, heck in 15 years I NEVER took pictures of my old setting and I've already lost count re the number of pics I've taken of my new sparklies in just 14 months ... it's insane!!

So, if you're spending more time looking at your stone in different lighting environments and at different angles then yeah, you're going to notice more things about it (the "good" things will continue to thrill you, but the negatives will only grow over time). I think it's a great idea to take a step back and rethink your design. I really liked the Carre, but if you don't love it, I'm not sure you'll ever really grow to love it, you know?

Meanwhile I'm sure you're doing this but, as you're trying to decide, you definitely want to continue to keep your stone as clean as possible so that it can perform at its peak. You'd be surprised how quickly a stone can lose its "fabulosity" w/ just a few days of dirt on it. A nice soak or quick steam and you can fall right back in love sometimes.

Let us know what you decide when you start your re-design again, we LOVE to help :D !!!
 
I'm late to this thread! - I was just going to say that I think that a setting does affect the performance of some old cuts; dreamer had told me the optics of my oec would improve in a more enclosed setting and she was right, my diamond looks bigger, brighter, and the faceting is much crisper now in a halo setting. It looks like a different diamond! Go figure. I don't think the setting matters as much for ideal cut stones.

Anyway, I also just wanted to say that I love your diamond in this setting braga! I really do think it highlights the facets and makes the stone look huge and very sparkly.
 
Thanks, Junebug! I actually remembered that you had said this I. An earlier thread, so I kind of went with it!
 
In a stone with verified ideal light performance. No.

But in anything fancy, including old cuts... absolutely. I have a very well cut asscher. And I've changed setting three times and I can tell you... the setting makes a difference on the performance.
 
Gypsy|1392843652|3618783 said:
In a stone with verified ideal light performance. No.

But in anything fancy, including old cuts... absolutely. I have a very well cut asscher. And I've changed setting three times and I can tell you... the setting makes a difference on the performance.
Gypsy, What were the settings and which one worked best for you?
 
I had an X prong originally. And it did very little for my asscher.

gypsy%20hands%20size.jpg

Then I got my first halo. It had one pointers. It was prong set, but the diamond was set deep inside the halo. It was much brighter than the x-prong though.

file.jpg

Finally I got my second halo. This one is made of 1/2 pointers and my stone's girdle is ABOVE the halo line so it gets all kinds of light. It's the brightest yet.

DSCN0698.jpg

file.jpg
 
Thanks! Very helpful to have photos as well. Beautiful Asscher and I love how the last setting has the line of sparkle around the stone. I may be a halo convert after seeing that - at least I can do the research [ further down the rabbit hole haha]. Also, your stacking rings- both very pretty - the one in the center is inspiring a search for the alternating color and diamond as well.
thanks again!
 
Anytime.

My asscher, for your reference is 5.86 x 5.89.

One of my girlfriends had a gorgous 1.5 carat asscher.
Before the halo you could TOTALLY tell hers was much bigger.
After the halo? They looked the same size (the center stones, not the ring head). It was remarkable.

My second halo is much daintier and REALLY sets off the center stone and makes it a star. My first halo was more of a 'cluster' ring look which I really did not like as much.

Proportions matter.
FIRST HALO:
Gypsy%20Close%20up%20Before.jpg

SECOND:
Gypsy%20Close%20Up%20Halo.jpg

Steven Kirsch did my second halo. I believe the setting is in the 4k range.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top