Feedback on 3 stone setting CAD

[gingerolive]

Hello! I’m getting a 3 stone ring made and my jeweller has sent over 2 versions of the design based on our initial discussion.

The center diamond is just under 0.7ct (5.6mm), set in a trellis setting with 0.15ct (A) OR 0.2ct (B) side stones. Based on the drawings, I’ve decided to go with the 4 prong side stones look with a slightly curved cathedral / shoulder (similar to A).

I’m undecided on a few things:

1. Should I go with the .15 or .2 side stones?
2. Would a .69 center stone look proportional on my size 7 finger?
3. Band width - I’m thinking of going with 2mm or even up to 2.2 or 2.5. What do you guys think? Should I also add a lil taper near the stones?
4. Anything else that you would change?

Ring size: US 7

Thanks in advance and I’d love to see any similar rings that you have!

 

[tyty333]

1. Should I go with the .15 or .2 side stones?
   • Personal preference...I like the look of them tucked under more (.15) but with a size 7 finger I wonder if the .2s would be better as far as finger coverage. Really depends on what you like and what you're trying to achieve.
2. Would a .69 center stone look proportional on my size 7 finger?
   • This is subjective. Here is a relative look of a 5.6 stone look on a size 7 finger, 2mm shank. You can play with this tool here: https://www.diamdb.com/compare/0.69ct-round-5.6x5.6x3.46-vs-1ct-princess-5.51x5.51x3.97/
   • 
3. Band width - I’m thinking of going with 2mm or even up to 2.2 or 2.5. What do you guys think? Should I also add a lil taper near the stones?
   • I personally would add a little taper. Might go 2.2 taper to 2. Again, personal preference and all.
4. Anything else that you would change?

 

[josieKat]

Hello! I’m getting a 3 stone ring made and my jeweller has sent over 2 versions of the design based on our initial discussion.

The center diamond is just under 0.7ct (5.6mm), set in a trellis setting with 0.15ct (A) OR 0.2ct (B) side stones. Based on the drawings, I’ve decided to go with the 4 prong side stones look with a slightly curved cathedral / shoulder (similar to A).

I’m undecided on a few things:

1. Should I go with the .15 or .2 side stones?
2. Would a .69 center stone look proportional on my size 7 finger?
3. Band width - I’m thinking of going with 2mm or even up to 2.2 or 2.5. What do you guys think? Should I also add a lil taper near the stones?
4. Anything else that you would change?

Ring size: US 7

Thanks in advance and I’d love to see any similar rings that you have!

This is my original engagement ring with somewhat similar stone sizes to your smaller side stone version plus a taper so you can see what that might look like (although my band is flat and not cathedral). My stones were AVRs, so they have different faceting but the .76 center would have faced up about the same as your center stone. My .10 sides are a bit smaller than your .15s - I do prefer a smaller side stone on a 3 stone ring but lots of people prefer bigger so it is definitely up to which one you like better. I found the stone size just a bit small proportion wise on my 5.75 finger, although I think the center size would have been fine as a solitaire or set higher (that’s just me - I like a smaller solitaire look but a bigger 3 stone). Anyway, I prefer the smaller tucked look of your first version but they are both very nice!

 

[josieKat]

Oh, my band was 2mm that tapered to 1.8.

 

[molecule]

My preference would be for the first set of side stones with three prongs oriented the opposite way of how you have them in the second image - so that way one prong is on the outside.
Attaching my smaller three stone inspiration that I'm working on.

 

[junebug17]

If it was me, I'd go with the .20 for the extra finger coverage.

 

[gingerolive]

1. Should I go with the .15 or .2 side stones?
   • Personal preference...I like the look of them tucked under more (.15) but with a size 7 finger I wonder if the .2s would be better as far as finger coverage. Really depends on what you like and what you're trying to achieve.
2. Would a .69 center stone look proportional on my size 7 finger?
   • This is subjective. Here is a relative look of a 5.6 stone look on a size 7 finger, 2mm shank. You can play with this tool here: https://www.diamdb.com/compare/0.69ct-round-5.6x5.6x3.46-vs-1ct-princess-5.51x5.51x3.97/
   • 
3. Band width - I’m thinking of going with 2mm or even up to 2.2 or 2.5. What do you guys think? Should I also add a lil taper near the stones?
   • I personally would add a little taper. Might go 2.2 taper to 2. Again, personal preference and all.
4. Anything else that you would change?

Wow thanks for that! I feel exactly the same on the side stones, I’ll have to ask my jeweller if it would be possible to get the “tucked under” look with 0.2 stones.

I’ve actually played around with the diamond simulator tool! I wish it had a three stone option

 

[gingerolive]

This is my original engagement ring with somewhat similar stone sizes to your smaller side stone version plus a taper so you can see what that might look like (although my band is flat and not cathedral). My stones were AVRs, so they have different faceting but the .76 center would have faced up about the same as your center stone. My .10 sides are a bit smaller than your .15s - I do prefer a smaller side stone on a 3 stone ring but lots of people prefer bigger so it is definitely up to which one you like better. I found the stone size just a bit small proportion wise on my 5.75 finger, although I think the center size would have been fine as a solitaire or set higher (that’s just me - I like a smaller solitaire look but a bigger 3 stone). Anyway, I prefer the smaller tucked look of your first version but they are both very nice!

This is perfect! I was worried that smaller side stones may blend in too much with the band (especially since I was considering a slightly wider one), but yours look exactly how I’d like mine. I’ve been trawling three stone threads to see what different specs and features look like, but most people don’t mention what they do with the taper and band width so this was super helpful!

 

[gingerolive]

My preference would be for the first set of side stones with three prongs oriented the opposite way of how you have them in the second image - so that way one prong is on the outside.
Attaching my smaller three stone inspiration that I'm working on.

Hey! I actually prefer the squarish look you get with 4 prong side stones, but totally get why others may prefer a more tapered look with 3 prongs. It’s definitely more elegant and dainty but those are not quite me I guess. I have pretty fleshy fingers so I’d prefer a boxier look to balance that out, if that makes sense!

 

[gingerolive]

If it was me, I'd go with the .20 for the extra finger coverage.

Hm I’ve seen pictures of 0.15 on smaller fingers which looks great so maybe sizing up to 0.2 for my finger size would make sense. Or perhaps I’ll have to bug my jeweller for something in between (0.17?!)

 

[josieKat]

Hey! I actually prefer the squarish look you get with 4 prong side stones, but totally get why others may prefer a more tapered look with 3 prongs. It’s definitely more elegant and dainty but those are not quite me I guess. I have pretty fleshy fingers so I’d prefer a boxier look to balance that out, if that makes sense!

Mine splits the difference - I have four prongs, but my wife had them pinch the outer prongs in slightly in comparison to the inner prongs to help the taper illusion - just another option if you want to add to a tapered appearance but not go to three prongs. You can see it a bit more clearly with my current ring.

 

[gingerolive]

Mine splits the difference - I have four prongs, but my wife had them pinch the outer prongs in slightly in comparison to the inner prongs to help the taper illusion - just another option if you want to add to a tapered appearance but not go to three prongs. You can see it a bit more clearly with my current ring.

No way, this is ingenious! I hadn’t even noticed that in your original pictures but now it just makes so much sense (not to mention holding the stones just that bit more securely)! Thank you for suggesting this, I’m absolutely going to shamelessly steal that idea and hope my jeweller can deliver

 

[josieKat]

No way, this is ingenious! I hadn’t even noticed that in your original pictures but now it just makes so much sense (not to mention holding the stones just that bit more securely)! Thank you for suggesting this, I’m absolutely going to shamelessly steal that idea and hope my jeweller can deliver

I'm glad you found it helpful! I'm sure we all look forward to seeing your ring when it is done!

 

[ZestfullyBling]

the 3:1 with .20 side stones looks good and .20 pointers give more finger coverage.
I have a similar setting and in size 7.

1ct Round .6 ctw sides

 

[headlight]

Hey! I actually prefer the squarish look you get with 4 prong side stones, but totally get why others may prefer a more tapered look with 3 prongs. It’s definitely more elegant and dainty but those are not quite me I guess. I have pretty fleshy fingers so I’d prefer a boxier look to balance that out, if that makes sense!

Agree about the 4-prong for side stones!

 

[gingerolive]

the 3:1 with .20 side stones looks good and .20 pointers give more finger coverage.
I have a similar setting and in size 7.

1ct Round .6 ctw sides

Gorgeous set! Yours are on the larger side for what’s common in my area, but man the bling I love how the proportions of the ering stones, band width, and eternity ring width look together.

Do ratios like 3:1 or 1:2:1 generally refer to carat weights or diameters? Intuitively the latter makes sense since diameter is what the eye perceives, but I’ve seen most people use ratios to refer to carat weights so I dunno.

 

[ZestfullyBling]

With your porportion .2/.69/.2 your ratio is closer to 3:1 as well so would be a blingy ring with great coverage.

have you decided which size o side stone to go with?

 

[gingerolive]

With your porportion .2/.69/.2 your ratio is closer to 3:1 as well so would be a blingy ring with great coverage.

have you decided which size o side stone to go with?

I was hoping to ask my jeweller if they have any .17/.18 LGD for the side stones! If not, I’d probably spring for the .2 and have them positioned like the .15s in the CAD.

I feel like the 3 prongs in the second drawing is throwing off the cohesiveness of the 3 stones (.2/.69/.2) so hoping it would look better once the new 4 prong + cathedral setting is applied to the .2. I’m also trying not to overthink the 5pt difference since it’s probably not noticeable to anyone but myself (and perhaps PSers)