Emerald cut setting - 3 or 5 stone - help?

[pilgrim]

Maybe it''s a long shot, but if someone has seen a setting like this in platinum, please let me know.

Here''s option 1 - we wish the side stones were larger, and wish the actual construction of the setting (as shown in the side view) was more like the one below (though the band would fit closer on this one). Ignore the diamond size for now, only approximately correct:

The three stone setting below is under consideration too, though we''d prefer a band more like the one above (squarish) and the side stones might be a little large. The side view of this ring seems better (the way the setting is constructed).

Web page links:

With sidestones

Three stones

Thanks for any and all ideas or comments!

 

[widget]

Hi, Pilgrim...welcome!

I''m sure lots of reputable jewelers could manufacture a mounting to your exact specifications. Many would suggest you have the mounting made by the same vendor who supplies the diamonds.

The three-stone emerald cut configuration is my very favorite for an Ering. Here''s a picture of one I particularly like...it was done by Diamonds by Lauren.

Good luck, and have fun!

widget

 

[pilgrim]

Thanks!

I had a ring custom made once before, by what I thought was a reputable jeweler, and wasn't really all that happy with the results. I guess it seemed like they were figuring out how to build it, rather than knowing exactly how to accomplish what I wanted. While custom has its advantages, it seems like going with a design someone has made before, so they have it figured out, has some advantages. I'd want something that was well constructed. I know lots of people are happy, though, so maybe we will end up going that route. And as you suggest, if it's similar to something they've done before maybe that means they've figured it out.

 

[pilgrim]

I do see some of the (very particular) people here are very happy with their custom work, and I''m entirely comfortable working with someone at a distance, so I''ll look into some of the suggested ones .... though if something like this exists, I''d still be interested.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I like the three stone.

 

[momothree]

I do too. By the way, I like the look of the larger side stones (like the ones in the Tiffany ring you posted) instead of smaller and/or narrower ones. In my opinion, the Tiffany has a very nice flow.
However,...in my research for my own EC setting, I swear I saw a ring posted that was very much like the 5 stone you show. I quite liked it; it looked a little less "choppy" than the one you posted. Why don''t you take a spin through some old postings about Emerald Cuts and see if you can find it...

 

[valeria101]

You can count on my vote for five-stone rings any time

Some examples....

Vatche does 5-stone settings... and surely do take custom orders. There is this sample for squares on their online catalog.

Some folk would also call somehting like this 'five-stone' for obvious reasons:

From Estate Diamonds

A few times I have seen sets of five matches diamonds cut as a set: one emerald cut and two graduated pairs of trapezoids made to flow one into the next. The total weight is usually less than for five emerald cuts, the look that of a band of sculpted diamond across the finger... and not common at all.

Here's one with seven graduated diamonds. Couldn't find any example right on the mark online.

From Fancy Diamonds

There are a few down this link Including the one in the picture in the next post which seems to be built much like you say (the one at Tiffany), only for square diamonds.


I wouldn't bet on finding a fine 5-stone setting for anything bu squares or rounds, because the proportions and relative size of the emerald cuts would be less predicatble - so it makes less sense to have such settings made and sold empty off the rack.


As far as I can tell, the first setting in your initial post with one prong per baguette for the four sidestones was made to bypass this problem (and cut cost) - 'guess that the solution does not pose much constrain on small size variation of the sidestones, but how long would they last #1 with those exposed corners intact and #2 in the setting ? The maker should have the answer, just wondering here

 

[valeria101]

The picture that refuesed to get attached above:

 

[pilgrim]

Well, she likes the 3 stone too! And as valeria101 thought, have seen no 5 stone settings along those lines. Probably problematic, anyway, as you suggest.

And momothree you''re right, we''ve gone back to looking at that size side stones - total 80-95 points for the sides. The problem with the Tiffany ring, besides the price, was the setting really protrudes to each side at the base, which that photo doesn''t show. It''s not angled in much at all. We didn''t love some of the other details, either.

Some of the 3- and 5-stone Jeff Cooper rings, similar to the trellis one valeria101 posted above, were nice - like the R3115. Interestingly, she didn''t want his name all over the inside of her ring! And I think she''s a little too conservative to take the plunge on those. He also has a ring that is much like the one you described, with 3-4 small stones on each side that fit tightly together and flow in (R3100 and R3102, in "New Designs") - very nice, I wouldn''t have minded at all if she''d picked one like that. (Can''t link effectively to the specific rings - http://jeffcooperdesigns.com/, and not all are on the website it seems )

And like you I thought some of the square (princess) stone rings looked very nice, but she''s convinced the EC looks best on her fingers.

Thanks for the tip on vatche, I will definitely have a look!