feeling frustrated...1 stone or 5

[icelovr]

Hello again,
I am in need of some input. My criteria is simple..sparkle...sparkle...sparkle and throw in a little holy

for good measure...I had a 5 stone 1.2 center marq w/ 4-.38 each rounds - 2 per side - it is now somewhere on Clearwater beach or on someone''s finger...

- this was not an engagement ring..it was an "oh my I''m 30 ring and I buy my own rocks purchase"...here is the dilemma - while I want the whopper of a 2ct RB, I am torn between 1 really big whopping sparkler or something smaller in the center (1.75?-too big?) flanked w/ 4 rounds (? 2 - .50 and 2-.30)...I loved the reactions to my first one - WOW that''s a serious ring and I would like it again as opposed to - oh yeah 1 monster stone....any suggestions? Would a 2CT 5 stone be too over the top... not to mention needing to apply for a second job....
Please help

 

[jenibear]

I really think ring designs and the debate over solitaire versus sidestones comes down to personal preferance.
I don't care for solitaires. They're pretty, but I like sidestones because you can make the ring more unique IMHO.
Some will argue you can mix things up by getting a unique wedding band, but I want a simple wedding band and an awesome e-ring.
Some will say what you want is flashy, but if you like flashy and you can afford it, then go for it. If you want to stay away from flashy and do something more classic, then I'd go for a solitaire.
There is also the possibility of doing a large center and very small sides to give it an extra sparkle.
Good luck!

 

[Mara]

What about a 3 stone ring? You could have a significantly larger center stone flanked with smaller but still significant side stones....then you get that 'bling' look that people stare at...but its not a 5 stone ring where you can't ever close your hand..hee hee.




You could do something like a 1.5c or similar center stone with .75c each side stones, total carat weight of around 3c. Too expensive?

Or since you have found that 2c stone you really like...and looks great from the numbers....maybe do something like that with pave set stones along the sides and along the band? That is really flashy, my ring is a center stone with an eternity style diamond band, very flashy and I *love* it. It doesn't match with my jeans personality at all, but I really love it. Plus it is cheaper to embellish the band than to get other side stones, esp those to match up with a 2c stone.

 

[icelovr]

Ahhh... very good suggestion about the pave and w/ the 3 stone - I love the ideas by the way - only one problem - my engmt. ring is a 1.80 round Ceylon AAA flanked w/ 2-.45 G rounds set in white..I fear the 3 stone would look too much like twinsies

...but you say you like the sparkle of the pave huh? - I'm not totally sold on the 2ct yet-the #s do look good, but I noticed it is listed at 4 different online places for a difference of $600 - the GIA cert is all the same # so I know it's the same stone. One dealer says it's on hold by someone else, so I may have lost it

...

 

[Fancy]

Since you have a "three" stone ring for your e-ring, I say either you do the five stone ring -- and if you can afford it, why not have the 2ct cetner with four smaller diamonds, since I don't think it would be any more flashy than a 1.75 with four small diamonds, or the 2ct center with pave around the band -- I LOVE this style.

Mara -- post a pic of your ring on this thread so she can see !!!!(it's a stunner and I think it's just perfect). Or you can just do a search with the phrase "Mara's ring" and I think you will find it.

 

[icelovr]

Fancy,
The cost is a factor, but I can save up...and pretend to be patient - yeah right - I have long fingers and rather large hands (for a woman) - I am almost 6ft tall - so I think I will be able to handle a 5 stone (he says I can justify any size diamond - does he know me or what?) - I am focusing on the price difference between a 1.75 v a 2. while trying to maintain the WOW factor - do you think there is a major visual difference? What size sides would I put w/ it?

Mara - I did a search for the ring - I'm dying to see it - can you repost or help me find it...

Nevermind I found it and OH MY !!! - definitely a possibility - it's gorgeous - very flashy and very different...the center looks bigger than your specs....is it a single row of the .03's?

 

[Mara]

Yes it's a single row of .03s all the way around the band. Very flash and sparkly in the lights...

I like the flash though. It reminds me that its there.




Have you seen the Michael B settings (similar)....he has one like mine and also he has something called a 'three pave' or similar, it means pave on the top like mine, and then on the SIDES...its a flasher thats for sure. I wouldn't buy his settings, they are overpriced for what they are...have it custom and save $$ and get better melee (small) stones. My ring isn't pave, it's prong set for security, but I love pave and that was my first choice. I love the overall uniformity of the sparkle and look.




If you already have the 3 stone, I would do something different. 5 stone is nice, but sounds like you did that too. So maybe do something entirely diff, like the pave or the solitaire. Or maybe an antique style setting or similar...with claw prongs and some filigree on the band. See some of the bands/settings by Leon Mege...really beautiful stuff, almost like it has its own personality.




BTW that stone that you found that is posted on multiple site, it probably means that its a virtual stone meaning that it is held by a wholesaler and then a vendor calls to say they want the wholesaler to send it to them for you to view. Then they can sell it. It takes some of the inventory pressure off of the vendor. So I would use that $600 price diff to your advantage (if the stone is still avail)...but don't worry that is it on multiple sites, that is common for stones that are not a permanent part of a vendors inventory.

 

[Fancy]

I also have large hands for a woman, and have the "no diamond is too big" philosophy, so I may not be the right person to tell you what size stones to put next to the 2 ct ring.

But for what it's worth, I think the 2 ct stone flanked by 2 .50 stones,then 2 .30 stones would be stunning, not to mention WOWOWOWOWOW!

If you can't swing the price, then I would go with 4 .30 points, or 2 .30 points and 2 .20 points. And if that's too pricey, I would rather keep the center stone larger, even if it means having .10 pointers flanking the 2 ct stone (which i think would still add lots of sparkle).

And of course, the pave all the way around (either prong set or otherwise) is another fabulous choice. In fact, my jeweler's wife and one of his salepeople wear this, and I must tell you, it adds tremendous sparkle and WOW. I can never stop staring!

If the 2 ct is just too much for you to spend now, then I would go with the 1.75 (no, I don't think there's THAT much of a difference), and put the 2 .50 pointers and 2 .30 pointers like you said -- OR even just the 1.75 stone with the pave all the way around .. or to be different, put a .50 on either side, and then the rest of the band pave.

Decisions Decisions ...

I don't think I've been that much help!