Help choose my Ritani engagement ring setting please!

[Stalecupcake]

Hi everyone, thanks to all those that helped me pick a diamond and confirmed that its a beauty!

Now that I have the stone picked out, I need help deciding on the setting. I know I want a pave/micropave band, and while I like the dainty look of thin bands, I was advised not to go too thin because my 2.9 ct stone will cause the ring to spin or become lopsided. Is this true? Also I was told a thin band and big stone may cause the stone to rip off or have durability issues. Can owners of 2.5+ carat stones and thin bands (2mm or less) chime in? However the Ritani rep told me that their settings "are all hand cast in one piece and therefore poses no durability issues" - I'm not sure if I believe or understand how hand casting it in one piece means its more durable...does anyone know why or what she meant?

Please help me decide!

Setting #1 (first photo)

2.3-2.4 mm band
Tapered band that pinches near the diamond (not ideal because I want my weddin band and engagement ring to sit flush on my finger)
The matching wedding band with this setting together looks a bit "much" so I would have to get a thinner wedding band and therefore have that "mismatched look" - undecided if I like this yet
Diamonds are bigger and more visible on the band
Diamonds are channel set and this a bit safer/durable

Setting #2 (second photo)
2.0 mm band
Non-tapered band would allow my wedding band to sit flush
Smaller diamonds, a very subtle sparkle
Is this too dainty and will it pose durability issues to a 2.9 carat large stone?
Will my stone coupled with the thin band make the ring spin all the time?

 

[telephone89]

I prefer the second as I think it looks nicer, and if you want a flush wedding band. However, I have no idea the durability with regards to a (practically) 3ct stone.

 

[emmebee]

I think #1 is a more "blingy" look, while #2 will let your center stone pop more. Which would you prefer? I wish I could see them on a hand, that would be much easier to decide!

 

[luv2sparkle]

I like the second one better. I have never liked the setting with the tapered bands, but that is a personal choice. Some people love them.

I don't think the durability of the head will be an issue at all. I do have a three sided pave, 2.mm band, and after a few years of wearing it, it has some dents in the top edge and is slightly out of round. So, the general durability of a thin band is in question for me.

The experts here can correct me if I am wrong but I think a cast piece is stronger than an hand forged piece. My eternity is a cast piece and it has held up without a scratch.

You really have to be so very careful with a delicate thin band. I thought I was being careful, but I still ended up with damage. Right now I am living with it, but if I ever reset it will be a little thicker or maybe just without the beloved pave.

There are definitely some durability issues, just not with the head.






edited for a typo

 

[Stalecupcake]

I like the second one better. I have never liked the setting with the tapered bands, but that is a personal choice. Some people love them.

I don't think the durability of the head will be an issue at all. I do have a three sided pave, 2.mm band, and after a few years of wearing it, it has some dents in the top edge and is slightly out of round. So, the general durability of a thin band is in question for me.

The experts here can correct me if I am wrong but I think a cast piece is stronger than an hand forged piece. My eternity is a cast piece and it has held up without a scratch.

You really have to be so very careful with a delicate thin band. I thought I was being careful, but I still ended up with damage. Right now I am living with it, but if I ever reset it will be a little thicker or maybe just without the beloved pave.

There are definitely some durability issues, just not with the head.






edited for a typo

Thanks so much for this feedback! Was it a dent on the band? 2.0mm is thin but I've seen 1.4mm too and that was just WAY TOO THIN! I'm only worried about the head but now you've got me thinking about the band durability because I'm not careful with my things at all.... :S

 

[Stalecupcake]

I think #1 is a more "blingy" look, while #2 will let your center stone pop more. Which would you prefer? I wish I could see them on a hand, that would be much easier to decide!

I like having my centre stone pop more because I want an eternity wedding band as well and I don't want to be "overly blingy" if there was ever a thing! My concern is just durability problems with thin bands I guess.

 

[luv2sparkle]

The dents are on the top mil grain edge. It is bent inward over the diamonds. It is super thin, and again it is three sided pave at about 2mm. I have a martin flyer ring that is cast and much larger, maybe 3mm and I haven't had any issues with that one either. I am guessing you will probably be ok with either of the Ritani's. Just make sure your girl takes it off to clean, or work out, or any of the normal things.
I have done all of those but I think things like carrying heavy grocery bags or luggage are a problem with a hand forged band. Sometimes, you just can't avoid it though.

edited to add;

I wish I could post pictures of it but the camera just won't pick up the damage. Need a better camera to do that.

 

[kellydean]

I have a 3.01 carat emerald cut diamond I am thinking about setting in one of those bands myself!! I have the same questions about them myself.. I also want the bands to sit flush and match like #2. I really worry about the spinning issue as the solitaire it is set in now spins BAD!! hate that.. it is hardly ever upright. have you made any decision yet? there is no jeweler near me that I can see them. I am planning a trip in a few weeks ( nearest store that has Ritani is about 2 hours away) to see them myself. all the picture on line are hard to judge by. I really love the dainty elegance of the setting but I worry about my diamond overwhelming the setting?