Does this setting make my Diamond look small?

[Lvoeshinythings]

Hello all you wonderful people.

Please share your thoughts with me regarding the latest ring-venture turned ring-debacle.

I’ve been thinking of swapping my setting yet again. I don’t know exactly what it is, but a couple things bubble up:

• Are the prongs too small and narrow? Too tiny? Would meatier have been better for balances' sake since the shank is thicker?
• I am not thrilled with the side-profile for whatever reason; perhaps the faux-halo should have sat lower and tighter into the diamond (but I love the top-down view; and I like the front view)

Diamond: 2.58 I-color VVS2, Whiteflash ACA. Measurements: 8.88x8.96x5.39

Current setting: custom, platinum, faux-halo, split-shank, euro-shank, from 2.5mm to 3 mm in thickness. I like thick and heavier shanks as I don't wear a separate wedding band and I just love heavier metal.

What do you all think? I know that choosing a setting is usually deeply personal and dependent on your own tastes and preferences but I'm hoping you'll take a gander and give me some input on what I should have done better; not that I could go back and fix/re-do this exact setting, but from an aesthetic stand-point, what should I do differently next time? (I'll post a couple of different new-setting ideas that I'm thinking about, in the next post.)

Here are some current photos:

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

One setting I was considering is going back to a 6-prong basket, except having some detail around the prongs. I kinda like how the basket here is thicker, only thing is I like to see the culet and I'm not sure this style can accommodate that without being set too high. I do not like diamonds set high.

Inspiration pic:

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

Here's another thought rolling around. Going for some kind of halo and pave. I nave never had a halo before. I like the below except with a tapered band (diamonds to taper in size as well).

Inspiration pic:

 

[kenny]

Nothing could make that honker look small!

Beautiful!!!

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Your diamond is beautiful! Personally, the only changes I would make would be to either make the split shank more prominent, or switch to a tapered style of band, or make the band uniformly thin, I think it’s because the band is so much thicker near the stone you feel it’s making your stone look smaller. I’m a big fan of pave bands, with or without a halo.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think the under bezel is a bit too large in diameter.
When you look from close I bet each eye can see some of it from face on.
It would be simple for a bench jeweller to file and polish some off without removal of the stone.
also not a fan of the matt finish - prefer polished and rhodium plated - but that is a personal choice issue.

 

[MarionC]

Hi. I don’t know how anything could make that beautiful diamond look small, but I learned from my own setting experiments that removing some metal can make a setting more flattering to a diamond.

As Gary said, the current setting could be refined easily.

I had a couple of settings “refined” and it made all the difference. Might be fun to try before heading for the next setting?? Here are before and afters.

 

[Mamajemmy]

I think your ring is stunning. Any changes I would make would be just from a personal preference standpoint and wouldn’t make it look any larger. It huge to begin with but the only thing that I think would make it look larger is a halo (which I’m not a fan for me especially with a larger stone) or to have it set a little higher which you said you’re not a fan of.

All that being said, I’m in the process of changing out my setting because it feels too thin and flimsy on my finger. I never thought that would be the case. I’ve always loved the look of thin bands— so I understand the feeling of it being not quite right. Follow your gut on this. You have amazing style.

 

[Mamajemmy]

One setting I was considering is going back to a 6-prong basket, except having some detail around the prongs. I kinda like how the basket here is thicker, only thing is I like to see the culet and I'm not sure this style can accommodate that without being set too high. I do not like diamonds set high.

Inspiration pic:

This is incredible

 

[headlight]

@Lvoeshinythings I think your ring is fabulous. The prongs are perfection, IMO. I love the design, I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s like a great hybrid between a prong-set and a bezel. I love how the prongs come up from the halo. How long have you had this mounting?... maybe live with it a little longer before you throw more money at another mounting? I also love the finish of the metal and how you can see so much of the diamond. It’s like it’s suspended in air which is really cool. Also will be super easy to keep clean, no areas for gunk to accumulate/hide. Gorgeous, massive diamond! I say live with it. I think you are all over the board on other options which tells me that you don’t really know what you want so I think you should wait because I fear if you aren’t really solid on what you want, you will be back in this situation again. It’s really a very stunning ring!

 

[lydial]

I am like you in that I like my diamond set pretty low for practicality reasons. But too low can make the stone look smaller in my opinion. Yours isn’t particularly low but if you want a slightly more prominent look, that would accentuate size, you may want any next settings a tiny bit higher. 7.5 to 8mm or so from your finger For a 2.5 ct minimum. Also a reverse taper instead of split shank will accentuate your center stone. It is a beautiful diamond.

 

[Niel]

No your diamond doesn’t look small

 

[missy]

That’s an amazing diamond and I love the setting. It looks splendid in that setting. Elegance and glamour personified

 

[alittlelight]

I love this current setting fwiw. Very sleek and elegant.

 

[Sunstorm]

Nope!!! Gorgeous stone! The only thing is that the setting is a bit too heavy, too low and could use polish. But if you love heavier, more matted and very low then it will definitely not emphasize your stone. I absolutely love the YG setting you are considering though! So some factors that could help: more refined setting, higher setting, tapered shank, polish. These are all subjective and your choice though!

 

[tyty333]

I like the current setting too....its interesting without being too different if you know what I mean. I agree with Garry H. I would try to flatten the
basket some. I also would have taken the "split" part of the shank further down the shank so that it could be seen when looking down at your
stone. And No, your stone does not look small. I think the prongs are good. I love the textured metal.

 

[gregchang35]

Your stone does not look small in that setting.

Some good suggestions about thinning the under bezel And making the split shank go lower so it’s visible...

You like thicker/ weightier bands...and eliminate the wedding band.

you like milgrain, what about engraving?
try se in a store.

woudl like to try halo and pave.
This would thin the look of the band a lotadd more sparkle to the ring.
Perhaps try something in a BnM store to get a feel of the setting.

Options:

I think adding engraving/ milgrain will be the easiest/ most economical option. Milgrain on a wide band may not come off well. It would remind me of a men’s wedding band.
Engraving/ scroll work might work better.And that is what I would check out.

If you are open to stacking the ER:

1) try a skinny eternity band
2) try 2 skinny eternity bands in either side of the ER.

 

[Morenita21]

First off, gorgeous diamond!!! Secondly, I personally love the European shank. I had my original engagement and wedding bands with the euro shank. I think you should go definitely thin down the shank and the metal underneath the diamond. I would also add pave to the shoulders.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Your ring is beautiful and I agree with others that refining it a bit might make you happy enough to delay resetting. The basket collet can be slimmed down which will make a big difference. I like the matte finish, but you could have a high polish finish done, live with that for a while, and if you don’t like it, have it mattified back. An experiment in reflection management!

 

[diamondsR4eVR]

Gorgeous stone! Gorgeous ring. I love it! When I was reading your post, I was like, oh dear, what kind of setting did she put a gorgeous ACA stone in especially when I read faux halo. I was like, WHAT is that! Lol
But nope! I love it and I even like the uniqueness of your setting.
With that said, at the end of the day you have to love it but you really have a wonderful ring there.

 

[nala]

I love it! Let me tell you why. I usually dislike solitaires bc the stone looks too defined. Like most just look like a circle that actually shrink the stone imo. Your setting makes the stone look robust. I don’t know how to explain it. But when I look ar your ring, I don’t see a tight circle. I see a huge stone!

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Could you have the collet pavé’d ? Tiny single cuts even?

 

[missindecision]

Holy moly that diamond is amazing!
The pave halo setting you are considering looks similar to what I chose fro my recent reset. I love that it sparkles from every angle but I didn’t really notice when picking it that the metal between the two rows of diamonds gives it a somewhat bezeled look from certain angles rather than a more defined diamond halo. Still deciding my feelings on it as it is definitely personal preference but just thought I would share!

 

[Lykame]

I agree that I think you really need to spend some time with this ring to really suss out why it's not working for you, otherwise you'll risk walking into the same trap if you decide to modify this ring or get another.

I have a few thoughts although of course they're personal to me and really it needs to be what works for you.

Firstly it's a beautiful ring. I love everything about it even though I myself am not a fan of split shanks. Even with the spilt shank I really don't think it makes your huge diamond look at all small - I think it would be difficult for that to happen with your stone, to be honest.

I think if you make the under halo thinner it's likely to throw off the balance between the shank and that section as currently I think that looks quite balanced. That might not visually be a bad thing however. I guess if the weight from it came from the top edge it would give the illusion of being lower but then it likely would not be so tight to the diamond.

I think if you put the under halo physically lower it would have to be internal to the split shanks otherwise there is no where for the halo to be generated from, if that makes sense. That would completely change the look - not necessarily in a bad way.

I really like your prongs as they are but see your inspiration pic has very broad prongs. Personally I think your current prongs are perfect because at the moment they make the ring all about the diamond; larger prongs will pull your eye to them. My ring has prongs that I feel are slightly too bulky for my diamond and I have ruminated on this for a while. It's hard to know how to satisfactorily resolve those types of issues in a way that would make you happy, I think, especially if you're not really sure what the problem quite is.

I do love your ring. As I said to you before, to me it looks like a crown - it's an extremely noble and special ring, and I do hope you figure out what will help settle you about it as you deserve to be happy.

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

Nothing could make that honker look small!

Beautiful!!!

Haha thanks for clearing THAT up!

 

[cmd2014]

Nothing could make that honker look small!

Beautiful!!!

This is exactly what I was thinking too!

I really like your setting on your hand. It looks flawless and stunning. I can only see what you are talking about when it's not. But I think it matters more what it looks like worn than not. But I think Gary's suggestions make a lot of sense and would probably address what it is that you don't like. I suspect you are seeing more metal from a partial side view than you might like. From head on, it's perfect.

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

Your diamond is beautiful! Personally, the only changes I would make would be to either make the split shank more prominent, or switch to a tapered style of band, or make the band uniformly thin, I think it’s because the band is so much thicker near the stone you feel it’s making your stone look smaller. I’m a big fan of pave bands, with or without a halo.

Thank you for your thoughts. I totally agree about the split shank being more prominent. I was trying to have the split-shanks meet up to the prongs, where those 4 of 6 prongs would usually "go." I wonder if I should have went about that part differently and how the split-shank would actually be able to be "wider" and more prominent and still meet up with the base of the prong.

Ah... lessons. I didn't mind it at first but the more I look at it, the more I *think* I'd prefer a more prominent split in the shank so I could see the side profile better.

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

I think the under bezel is a bit too large in diameter.
When you look from close I bet each eye can see some of it from face on.
It would be simple for a bench jeweller to file and polish some off without removal of the stone.
also not a fan of the matt finish - prefer polished and rhodium plated - but that is a personal choice issue.

Garry - thanks for your input! So...at first design, the faux-halo was actually supposed to show from the top-down view more so than it ended up doing. That's how the CAD was. I kind of wanted a "puffy" faux-halo for a more chunky and bubbly look. After all was said and done, the ring was not set properly the first time. When it was sent back for correction, we ended up pushing the stone into the faux-halo and this resulted in covering up the faux-halo while viewing top-down, almost entirely. I was okay with it though, as fixing the prongs and having it lay flush on the crown and pavilion was most important to me.

Thanks for your suggestion of asking a bench to file and polish some off of the "under the bezel." I may consider it as this may help with the side-profile view that irks me so much.

Sticking with the matte finish though.

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

Hi. I don’t know how anything could make that beautiful diamond look small, but I learned from my own setting experiments that removing some metal can make a setting more flattering to a diamond.

As Gary said, the current setting could be refined easily.

I had a couple of settings “refined” and it made all the difference. Might be fun to try before heading for the next setting?? Here are before and afters.

UHM>>> Hello?! What a transformation! I am SO intrigued! I didn't even know this was a thing (thank goodness for PS).

I originally (and still...) want a thicker mount. I just do. I like it heavy... am probably scarred (not scared, but scarred) from the thinner bands in my life. So much so that now, its got to be chunky or I won't be able to wear it easily. It's not that I'm hard on my jewelry, its just knowing its more sturdy gives me a sense of mind-cleanliness while out and about doing my thang.

That being said...... I do think we could shed a small amount of weight off the mount to balance it with the stone a little better. Could you please share with me what the process was like? Do you have a thread on your new-to-yous that I could study?

For myself, I prefer a simpler design... I wonder what I could get away with? I love milligrain. I don't know what else there is as far as design goes but I'm open to it.

Some questions:

• how did you come up with the design?
• did a jeweler or bench need to do some sort of CAD for the refinement?
• who did you end up going with to do the work?
• if you don't mind, a ballpark cost estimate, please?
• how long did the work take?
• anything you want to share with me, I'll happily take.

Thank you and ENJOY your two *new* rings. I love the end result though they were very pretty before.

 

[Lvoeshinythings]

I think your ring is stunning. Any changes I would make would be just from a personal preference standpoint and wouldn’t make it look any larger. It huge to begin with but the only thing that I think would make it look larger is a halo (which I’m not a fan for me especially with a larger stone) or to have it set a little higher which you said you’re not a fan of.

All that being said, I’m in the process of changing out my setting because it feels too thin and flimsy on my finger. I never thought that would be the case. I’ve always loved the look of thin bands— so I understand the feeling of it being not quite right. Follow your gut on this. You have amazing style.

Mamajemmy, thank you for sharing your thoughts! It was actually supposed to be set higher, about 1 mm higher. There was an issue the first go-round with the stone not being set into the faux-halo properly. Then, in order to fix it, we basically pushed the stone down further into the basket, which made me lose some height. The culet was originally lifted out of the little donut (I prefer it this way) but the rest of it (prongs) were messed up. So when push came to shove, I made concessions for one thing over another.

I agree with you on thin settings. It seems a lot of vendors are using thin settings now a days even for HUGE stones. I can see the appeal if you have a slender finger and to really accentuate the stone (let it shine!!!) but as far as wear and durability; too thin will always be too thin. What are you toying with for your new setting?

Thank you for the compliment. I am second-guessing myself more and more these quarantine days LOL.