shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. PriceScope Upgrade Completed
    For issues, questions and comments click the link below
    https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pricescope-upgraded-comments-and-issues.229551/

    Dismiss Notice

Eternity band alone as wedding band, half/whole, channel or shared prong?

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by jo_c, Dec 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jo_c
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    by jo_c » Dec 4, 2007
    I guess the subject line says it all. I have tried on both kinds of rings. Probably prefer the channel setting as it looks a bit more substantial as a standalone ring...i think...what do you think?

    Anyway. Ring size is 6. Which would you choose and why?

    I would be wearing this alone. Never had an e-ring and this is to replace my plain band. I am not terribly hard on my rings, but not exactly delicate either... I have considered a half eternity in the channel cut, but every time I try on a ring, I prefer the full eternity. Its my economical side...devil on my shoulder so to speak... Why pay for stones you only see when you get change... Oy decisions decisions...

    Here's the rings...These are about my budget limit.

    http://www.thefacetscollection.com/item.cfm?item_id=3994
    http://www.thefacetscollection.com/item.cfm?item_id=3989 (I have emailed them about a ring with stones more the size of the first ring)
    http://www.thefacetscollection.com/item.cfm?item_id=2202 (I actually prefer the channel set rounds..I am probably completely alone on this one [​IMG] but they dont have many on SP right now)

    As speced above, do you think there would be a big difference in the size of hte stones in those first two rings? I have tried on a round channel set with 9.5 pointers and it was yummy... but a Jared ring with no special cut...do you think an SP ring of say..7 pointers would look relatively equivalent?

    Thoughts? Opinions?

    Thanks so much!!!

    Jo
     
  2. HappyFish
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    66
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    by HappyFish » Dec 4, 2007
    I like the second channel setting most. It is simple and elegant.
     
  3. DiamanteBlu
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,499
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    by DiamanteBlu » Dec 4, 2007
    I like the channel set that goes all the way around. That way, when the ring spins you won't have to worry about which side faces up. I agree that is seems more substantial.
     
  4. mrssalvo
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,133
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    by mrssalvo » Dec 4, 2007
    shared prong full eternity. i''m just not a huge fan of channel set rounds because you can see the tiny gaps between the stones. I just love the full eternity look even though half the stones are one the bottom. when the ring spins though you will always see diamonds and no metal which I just love too.
     
  5. samii
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    by samii » Dec 4, 2007
    I love the first one - but then that is what I am having as my wedding and eternity bands, only half a band of diamonds. My reason was more for concern that I would lose diamonds and scratch items with them on the bottom, also for ease of changing size when we have children etc. However I do have a lingering doubt about wanting the full band of diamonds as I wonder if having to keep them aligned all the time will drive me nuts.

    I think the channel set rounds is lovely!
     
  6. jo_c
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    by jo_c » Dec 4, 2007
    HAHA. Those are all the things I keep saying in my head... It would be much easier if you would all agree on one... HAHA [​IMG] Maybe I will dream the answer tonight... Thanks for all the great input!!!
     
  7. NewEnglandLady
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    6,289
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    by NewEnglandLady » Dec 4, 2007
    I like #1 as well--as Mrssalvo mentioned, I''m not a fan of the gaps between diamonds with the channel set, but I also like prong set because you see the diamonds and not the metal, so it looks a tad more "blingy".

    I went with a half eternity because I''m cheap. Looking back, I wish I''d just gone ahead and gotten the full. This is a ring you will have forever and it should be exactly what you want! :)
     
  8. littledebbie
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    117
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    by littledebbie » Dec 4, 2007
    I like #1. If I were considering a ring like this I would get one exactly like Demelza''s. Here''s a picture. It''s similar to #1.

    5stoneIlove.JPG
     
  9. snlee
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,891
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    by snlee » Dec 4, 2007
    Ditto! My vote goes to band #1.
     
  10. Haven
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    13,166
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    by Haven » Dec 4, 2007
    Thritto!

    My vote goes for ring #1, as well, but I''m very partial to shared prong bands, and I don''t particularly like the look of channel set RBs. I''m getting a shared-prong full eternity wb to match my ering, which is a cushion set on an eternity band with shared prong RBs, too. I love my full eternity ering, I wouldn''t change it for anything.

    Shared prong vs. channel set is completely a matter of personal preference. I would go to a nice jeweler in your area and try on both, take some pictures, and refer back to them for a few weeks.

    As for the shared prong not looking substantial enough--it will! My ering has 4 pointers in the band and I''ve walked around with my center stone turned to the inside of my palm to see how a matching wb would look, and YOWZERS! Those little RBs shine and flash--7 pointers will definitely make a substantial ring, in my opinion.

    Good luck with your decision!
     
  11. samii
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    by samii » Dec 4, 2007
    Bugger! Now you''ve done it - I am really wishing I ordered the full bands now (it wasn''t a cost decision). Guess I''ll be back emailing my jeweller for the 100th time tomorrow unless anyone has a full band and wished they only got a half?
     
  12. jo_c
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    by jo_c » Dec 5, 2007
    Wow! So, demelza''s ring is 7 pointers? It looks HUGE! Its so difficult when trying on rings locally. The 1.6 ct shared prong rings I have tried on locally were not very substantial at all and frankly difficult to distinguish from the 1 ct ones, but then I did not count the stones and cant really tell you how big the stones actually were. Looks like another trip to the store. I have tried the larger places which I would have assumed had the bigger selection.

    Is there a thread about demelzas ring with specs? size? It certainly does look substantial!! I really do like the look of the shared prong, but in my trying on, it looks so lonely there like its waiting for some help...haha...and there is no big stone in my future (at least for another 10 years [​IMG].

    Jo
     
  13. jo_c
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    by jo_c » Dec 5, 2007
    K, I think I found a post about that ring... its a five stone ring and 2.5 ctw...ouch...so those are big-uns. Way bigger than my 7 pointers would be... off to search again for a 7-pointer SP eternity...
     
  14. mrssalvo
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,133
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    by mrssalvo » Dec 5, 2007
    here band has .50''s not .07''s, it really is HUGE[​IMG]

    here''s her thread:

    http://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/my-new-2-56-cttw-5-stone-band-t72660.html
     
  15. Haven
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    13,166
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    by Haven » Dec 5, 2007
    I''m sorry if you misunderstood my earlier post--I wasn''t referring to Demelza''s ring when I said an eternity with 7 pointers will look substantial, I was referring to the ring you linked to in your original post. Demelza''s ring is MUCH larger than 7 pointers!
     
  16. jo_c
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    by jo_c » Dec 5, 2007
    No worries! I understood what you were saying. I think I misunderstook the post that posted the pic. Now that I read it, she is just saying for that arena, she would choose that ring. It is certainly a fabulous ring! [​IMG] Hubba hubba!!

    Hubby did not at all care for the 5-stone...he is usually not very opinionated, but ring shopping has brought out his picky side. I think he could be convinced about the shared prong if I can find a 7-8 pointer to show him. I am going to call around today. The ones we have looked at were maybe 4-pointers and next to the channel round 2 ctw 9.5 pointers, it was looking pretty bleak!!!

    Anyway, I woud love to see an 7-8 pointer full eternity band (especially SP shared prong and channel set) hand shot if anyones got one??? Ive been searching and reading, but my head is starting to spin. Seems most of the locals stick with 4 pointers max or the big whoppers...

    Why dont online jewelers post hand shots with their rings? The photos on signed pieces are lovely, but...

    Thanks again![​IMG]

    Jo
     
  17. jo_c
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    by jo_c » Dec 5, 2007
    Samii----

    Im sorry! [​IMG] I hate it when that happens! I think that is why I am just driving myself completely nuts with this decision. Just think back to what made your decision in the first place. Im sure it will still ring true! (good pun). I swear sometimes it would be much easier if a little jewelry elf would come in at night and bonk you over the head and make the right decision for you...anyone know an elf?

    Jo
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page