Help! e-ring custom semi-eternity setting advice. 0.02c or 0.03c ACA melee''''s?

[vinvin0]

Hi All,

This forum is great. Very helping information and great people.

I am planning to get a engagement ring. It''ll be approx 1.2 carat RB with some small melee sidestone''s to make it a semi-eternity ring. I have seen pics of them in other postings (Jelly Lynn B, Matatora, Mara etc.)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-whiteflash-engagement-ring.33134/

My question is that my girlfriend is 5" 105pounds and is a size 4.75 and likes thin bands. She has small, but short and kinda chubby fingers. I am planning to get my setting custom made from WF but what size sidestones should I get? If I get 0.02c ACA''s the e-ring width will be 2mm, and if I get 0.03c ACA''s the width will be 2.3mm. Small difference I know, but still a decision to make.

She is afraid that when she has both e-ring and w-ring on, that if we chose 2.3mm bands, that would be too wide. But I am kinda afraid that a 2mm band is too thin and might have less sparkle with smaller melle stones etc.

WF has currently quoted me with 0.03c ACA''s but I have read that they can go to 0.02c ACA''s as well. One note is that all the e-rings I have seen in this design have 0.03c melee''s. Does anyone have pictures the setting in 0.02c melee''s?

What would be your choice and pro''s/con''s with either of these choices given my description of my girlfriend?

Thanks again for your advice,
-Vince

 

[dani13]

Hi Vince,

Welcome to ps! You have made a great choice to go with the eternity style band for your future Fi''s ring!! They are certainly beautiful and WF will do a great job for you. In my opinion, I would go with the slightly larger stones for the melee- 0.03. AT 2.3 mm, it will be just the right size- not too thick at all-just enough to notice the super-sparkliness of the ring! 2mm is really really thin- I would def go with the larger stones/band...dont think it will be overpowering at all!! Good luck!

 

[MissAva]

Has WF said that they are willing to make the ring with two pointers? They told me mine was the thinnest the would go, 2.2mm is not very wide by the way. I am not sure she would look at it and see .2mm in difference without them side by side and not definitely even then.

Also I don’t think that 4.4mm would be uncomfortable to wear. You might try PMing Lynn it sounds like your GF is her size.
PS, you aren’t supposed to share a lady’s weight.

 

[belle]

get the bigger stones.

 

[pebbles]

Bigger stones definitely. I had a shared prong setting with 2 point stones. It was really dainty and made my fingers look fat (IMO). I wear a size 6 - 6.5 ring.

 

[MiniMouse]

I think you''d both be delighted with the .03 melee. We had the same dilemma when we were looking, but having seen both, the .02 melee seemed to show up more metal than bling, which was why we went for the .03 melee. Both engagement ring and wedding band are great together (from Whiteflash) and looks very dainty and therefore perfect for a petite lady.

 

[Jelly]

Even though my fingers (size 7.5) are much bigger than your fiancee''s, I think the size .03 melee are still dainty and thin. Was there a big price difference in the two? Perhaps if it looks big on her, you can go like Mara and get a thinner wedding band of 2 pointers.

Are there any jewelers nearby where you can test the waters?

 

[mrssalvo]

i vote for the .03''s. i wear a 3.5 and have an eternity band with .03''s and it''s very dainty.

 

[Jelly]

Wow, Mrs. Salvo, I wish i had small fingers like you!

Does anyone have handshots of those .03 melee we can show Vin?

 

[HOUMedGal]

I went through this same dilemma when I got my e-ring made! hehe. Actually what happened to us was that we decided to go with the .02ct melee, and Michael E. ordered them, but when he got them, the place he orders from had accidentally sent him .03's instead! So he said that he would use the .03's (if that was OK with us, of course) and not charge us any more than he would have with .02's. So we said yes, a little more diamond for the same price is never bad, hehe.

And actually, I'm really glad it happened that way. The .03's have been perfect, and my center stone is really close to the size of your GF's...1.25. My ring size is just a little bit bigger (5.25). Here are a couple of pics so you can see one more example of .03's next to a 1.25 center:

And one more...

Hope this helps!!

 

[HOUMedGal]

One more thing...on my ring, the side edge isn''t really all the way into the diamond edge, there''s a little tiny bit of metal, so my band is actually a teeny bit wider than the minimum width you can do with .03''s. It actually has a little bit of a taper in the width of the band (as you move away from the center stone, it gets a teeeeny bit thinner).

 

[sluke]

I would vote for the .03 melee. I just recently got a 3/4 eternity band from WF with .03 melees and love it. I was debating between .03 & .04. Lesley recommended the .03. I wear about a 5.5/5.75 size, and I have short fingers (I''m 5''1"). The .03 melees are delicate but noticable.

 

[mrssalvo]

here''s a pic of my .03''s on a size 3.5...

 

[FireGoddess]

To throw a different voice into the mix, here''s my ring with 2 point melee on my size 7.5 finger. It''s VERY dainty and thin.

 

[vinvin0]

Hi Everyone,

Big Thanks for all your help. I can''t believe that there is just so much helpful people on this forum. I hope one day after I make my purchase, I can share my advice and pics too!

I''ve been looking at this forum quite heavily and really rely on it for information. I have seen so many pictures of 0.03 melee''s and I think from the response I am getting, I will stick to 0.03 melee''s (similar to Lynn B and Jelly''s e-ring) I hope they don''t mind that I am copying their design.

One more question. I am looking for a 4-prong head to hold the center stone. I am looking for something simple and thin to really show off the diamond. Any suggestions? I have looked at some threads, but can''t seem to tell the differences in the custom 4-prong heads from WF. I''m sure there are differences. Any links/ advice with your 4-prong head design?

Thanks again everyone!

 

[Lynn B]

Hey, Vince! I think you''ll be pleased with the 3 pointers. I''m sure it will look great on your girl''s finger. (And at 5'', 105#, her fingers must be the ONLY thing on her whole body that''s "chubby"!

)

Here''s a photo of the platinum head on my ring. It is new since my upgrade last summer, and it was specially crafted for me because I wanted the diamond to sit as low as possible, with prongs that were straight and sleek, shaved down and polished ultra smooth -- all as thin as possible. I love it.

 

[Lynn B]

And here''s a top-down photo...

 

[Lynn B]

And one last one...

 

[Mara]

Hi Vin, sorry I have not responded to your PM's....it's actually good you posted this to get more public responses as well!

My engagement ring has 3 pointers and my wedding ring has 2 pointers and I don't like how thick the band is for 3 pointers. Surely it depends on if you are doing shared prong or 4 prong melee like my own ring, so are you doing shared prong or 4 prong melee? My ring has a little bit more metal and if someone was doing the 4 prong melee I would say 2 pointers are better to make the center stone look bigger, but if you are doing shared prong (like countless others on here!) then I would say 3 pointers are fine as well because there's a little less metal to worry about adding the width to the ring. My ring looks alot like HouMed's pictures up above with 4 prongs holding each small stone.

For example my 3 pointers 4 prong melee ring is 2.7mm and my 2 pointers 4 prong melee ring is 2.3mm. The total width is not alot at all but some people like them thinner of course! I kind of wish I had gotten 2 pointers for both rings but way back when I was all about 'oh the most carat weight possible' when in reality I think 2 pointers would have been better for both rings and make my center stone look larger.

You can see millions of pictures of my rings in my 'A 1.60 J SI2 Finds a Home' thread over in SMTR...closeups of the settings as well so that you can see what I am talking about, my small 2 pointer and 3 pointers are held in by 4 prongs each rather than sharing a prong set between each stone.

 

[HOUMedGal]

Haha, Lynn, I was just going to tell him to go look at your head, because it''s nice and thin and shows off the diamond!!!

Also, Matatora''s ring has a nice, delicate head that doesn''t distract from the center stone at all! It''s another good one to check out!

 

[ame]

I vote 3s. It''s just a hair wider than 2s. Itll still look substantial but not TOO substantial and she''ll be able to wear her w-band alone and have it look substantial by itself.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 1/30/2006 7:58:06 PM
Author: HOUMedGal

...I was just going to tell him to go look at your head, because it''s nice and thin and shows off the diamond...

Ohmygosh!!! LOL! DH was walking by and read this and BOY did he get a funny look on his face!

Re-read that sentence from the perspective of a person who is not jewelry-fixated! Whatta visual! Absolutely hysterical!

 

[vinvin0]

Hi,

Yes, both Lynn and Matatora''s setting are very nice and really shows off the diamond! I like them both!

I was sent this "standard" 4-prong setting from WF. They look different that Lynn''s and Matatora''s. Anyone have comments about this standard setting / pictures with it?

I''ve seen pictures, but can''t really tell if it''s the standard setting or if a ring head was custom designed or slightly modified from the standard setting above.

Thanks,
-Vince

 

[Mara]

In general I find 4 prong settings not super attractive from the side view. That standard one looks pretty basic, you can always have them thin out the prongs a tiny bit and then also have them ensure the prong tips are tiny. The head won't look like that when it's all polished and done. But yes that's pretty basic.

But have to say that I haven't seen a 4 prong setting that is the V head like that in general that I have EVER found super attractive, including my own...they always look a bit scrunched or something to me!! But if you like 4 prong, and up until now I really have...then you kind of play the hand you are dealt!! however, I think I also am pretty picky about my side views and no one else seems to notice but me..hehe.

Oh I did want to say that out of all the 4 prong v settings I have seen, I think Lynns is the best looking and most spready!! Or maybe its her big honking stone that makes it look so fab.

 

[Lynn B]

Hey Vince,

Yeah, I agree... that head in the photo sent by WF does look rather "blah" and *mundane*. Of course, it is "naked" and diamond-less, and disengaged from any ring! That ain''t helpin'' it any!

One thing that was important to me when choosing the head, was one that would cover the stone as minimally as possible (yet safely, of course!) It really was just the vehicle (albeit the carefully, painstakingly chosen vehicle!) for showcasing that diamond!

I think your best best is to decide which style head you want, then send WF as many photos of it as you can find. Then they will know what they need to do (i.e., special order one in, modify an existing head, build it from scratch... whatever!)

Lynn

 

[brum]

You gals have gotten me all worried now!

I’ve ordered a custom setting half band with 3.5 H&A pointers- 5-6 aside of a 60-70 centre RB stone. My lady is tiny. The jeweler said 3.5 pointers will equate to a 2.25-2.3 band width.

What do you think?