first impression on the 2.5K

[Gypsy]

Also, that setting shows a lot od the side of the diamond and your stone is a K. The tint will be especially visible in profile, which is the view the wearer has most often.

Given the size of the stone Id feel most comfortable with 6 or 8 prongs.
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/legera-pave-six-prong-platinum-6649p
http://www.erikawinters.com/Engagement-Rings-Grace_Solitaire.html#.V2Or3tdlBdY (it comes with pave on the shank too)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/272503256/the-cvb-lad-jena-solitaire?ref=shop_home_active_7

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

This entire process has been exciting and entertaining to follow. fofolala is going to be a PS prosumer expert before long! Subscribed to the thread(s) and love being along for the ride!

 

[fofolala]

Hah! thanks Diamond_Hawk. I'm glad I provided some amusement along the way.

I'll be sure to write up my trip through the world of diamonds. And, of course, when I have a ring I'll post pictures.

Gypsy: the danhov style puts the prongs North/South, substantially hiding from view the profile of the diamond. For no logical reason at all, I'm not worried about doing 4 prongs. And, believe it or not, I thought about the shank width: I'm thinking to have it built at 1.8-2mm width.

 

[tyty333]

Hah! thanks Diamond_Hawk. I'm glad I provided some amusement along the way.

I'll be sure to write up my trip through the world of diamonds. And, of course, when I have a ring I'll post pictures.

Gypsy: the danhov style puts the prongs North/South, substantially hiding from view the profile of the diamond. For no logical reason at all, I'm not worried about doing 4 prongs. And, believe it or not, I thought about the shank width: I'm thinking to have it built at 1.8-2mm width.

That's a pretty ring...you should ask them for a picture of it with a wedding band on a finger. The shank of the setting meet up
at angles at the base of the stone so I'm not sure how a wedding band may sit with it. Would be good to know before you buy.
Looks like it could sit flush on one side of the shank (I'm talking E/W) then have a small gap on the other.

 

[fofolala]

That's a pretty ring...you should ask them for a picture of it with a wedding band on a finger. The shank of the setting meet up
at angles at the base of the stone so I'm not sure how a wedding band may sit with it. Would be good to know before you buy.
Looks like it could sit flush on one side of the shank (I'm talking E/W) then have a small gap on the other.

right - i see what you're saying and i noticed it, too.
when you look at the ring from the top (image 4) you can see that the shank, as it approaches the mounting, turns just a smidge. it can also be appreciated when looked at in image 3.

I should say: I'm not buying this danhov ring. I like its look, and it will be used as inspiration. it has a few problems:
the setting is too high,
the mounting beneath the diamond looks a bit ... messy (im not sure how to explain it: the E/W prong U under the stone appears to sit slightly above the N/S prongs and shank, rather than integrated),
the pave goes too far around (when someone's dealing with hand trauma, access to soft metal rings is very important. Eternity bands are one of my nightmares).

I'll look into it your comments, tyty333

 

[JDDN]

In case you wanted some other options. Not sure what your budget is for the setting, but these will be impeccably made. I love a 4 prong basket. I had a 2.3 carat MRB in a 4 prong basket and was terrified I was going to knock it against something and chip the girdle. I would've felt so much more comfortable with 6 prongs. It's a matter of taste and preference though. Also, my 2.3 stone was in a 2.2 mm shank which was much more delicate and thin than I was expecting. It spun a lot. Just something to consider .


https://www.victorcanera.com/rings/engagement/six-prong-solitaire-with-scalloped-basket

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/victor-canera-2-65ct-h-si1-six-prong-w-basket.221512/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/victor-canera-2-65ct-h-si1-six-prong-w-basket.221512/[/URL]

Can ask to do the shank in pave if you like this one:

https://www.victorcanera.com/rings/engagement/solitaire-with-pave-profile

 

[fofolala]

Thank you, JDDN. There's a nearby danhov dealer. I'll go see it in person.

 

[JDDN]

Thank you, JDDN. There's a nearby danhov dealer. I'll go see it in person.

Sounds like a good plan!!

 

[Gypsy]

That's a great idea.

Are there any other designs/rings that you like.

I am in general a four prong person. Just for the record. But with large rounds... no. I do like the prong orientation of N/S/E/W a lot actually.

With pave, I would not do 1.8mm shank on a stone that large. It will spin. I highly recommend a 2mm-2.2mm shank. In platinum and hand forged.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Hah! thanks Diamond_Hawk. I'm glad I provided some amusement along the way.

I'll be sure to write up my trip through the world of diamonds. And, of course, when I have a ring I'll post pictures.

Gypsy: the danhov style puts the prongs North/South, substantially hiding from view the profile of the diamond. For no logical reason at all, I'm not worried about doing 4 prongs. And, believe it or not, I thought about the shank width: I'm thinking to have it built at 1.8-2mm width.

Fantastic - I look forward to it. It is an amazing world you've stepped into - and you have excellent guides to help you along the way.

 

[VRBeauty]

Hah! thanks Diamond_Hawk. I'm glad I provided some amusement along the way.

I'll be sure to write up my trip through the world of diamonds. And, of course, when I have a ring I'll post pictures.

Gypsy: the danhov style puts the prongs North/South, substantially hiding from view the profile of the diamond. For no logical reason at all, I'm not worried about doing 4 prongs. And, believe it or not, I thought about the shank width: I'm thinking to have it built at 1.8-2mm width.

I'm impressed with the amount of research, especially hands-on research, that you're putting into this project. I'm sure it will pay off in the form of a stunning ring.

So... here's a little more optional reading for you, regarding shank thickness: https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/are-rings-too-thin-these-days-t155780-30.html

 

[fofolala]

Hardly optional! I feel like if I'm going to do this right, I have to apply as much thought and care as I can to understanding the complexities of the whole design task, evaluate the risks and benefits, and heed the warnings and expertise of those more experienced

Plus I've got plenty of time and interest.

Plus, most importantly, she's worth it.

 

[Gypsy]

Plus, most importantly, she's worth it.