#TBT Help finding a diamond/setting - budget ~5k

[Gypsy]

Wonderful! I'm so glad you were able to find something that was just right for your lady.

Can you come back and post pics! We love to see what people have bought!

 

[Niel]

I know I'm late to the party, and this isn't a halo, but the Gabriel and co setting no. ER8777PT3JJ is pretty vintage and in budget. And the head makes the stone look a bit bigger. Just an idea.

 

[smilligan]

Of course, Gypsy. That's the least I could do after all the help I've gotten. Plus, I love posting pictures. I'm terrible at keeping gifts a secret. I don't even have anything finalized and I already want to give it to her, lol. Thanks for the suggestion, Niel. That's a gorgeous looking setting and I'll definitely consider it if my current choice doesn't work out.

 

[Niel]

Oh my gosh look!

http://diamondbistro.com/category/204/Wedding-sets/listings/36117/Tacori-Style-Wedding-Set.html

 

[smilligan]

That looks like a great deal for the set, Niel. The center diamond is beautiful. I posted some pics of my top choice for a setting, ATM. They were taken by GOG at my request. I'd like to hear everyone's opinions. This is the diamond I've reserved for the setting: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/11291/. I have two minor issues with this setting choice. First, the shank is polished rather than pave (not a huge deal since the wedding band will balance it out). The other issue is that it's made of 18k WG instead of platinum. I was told that the setting was platinum originally, but it was a mistake. Me and my SO love WG, but I'm a little concerned after reading about it online. Is it true that WG rings are more prone damage and that they lose some of the precious metal over time? Also, what does a faded WG ring look like? Does anyone have a picture? Thanks.

 

[Niel]

Oh wow wow wow. I usually don't like that brand but that's just beautiful!

I agree if your having a diamond wedding band there really isn't a need for diamonds in the shank too! Plus I think you'll be white happy with how it looks with a diamond band. It'll look like two distinct rings. Not just lots of little diamonds.

And, so, is this being already made? And that's why you can't choose the metal?

White gold is not a dangerous metal. Sure its a little softer than platinum. And after time you can loose some god but its an minimal amount and I don't think its a reason to not choose the metal.

White is rhodium plated. That makes it look slightly whiter. That's not to say its just yellow gold under there with a white coating. When the rhodium wears off the white gold shows. And its a warmer white, because of course, there's gold in there!

Is this a problem? Up to you. Many people here don't even wear white gold with rhodium playing because they prefer the color of the white gold. And of course, its goldafter all . That's what you're paying for. Might as well see it.

But if it does bother you you can just it re dipped in rhodium for a small fee.

As for what the white gold color is exactly? Not sure. Depending on what alloy they used, it can be a few differet shades. Some more white than others.


If by chance it isn't already made, I'd have it done in 14k instead of 18 though. That is whiter, as there's a little less gold in there to yellow it. And really, you probably wouldn't need to redip it as much, if at all.

 

[UberClaire]

I'm going to have the dissenting opinion and say that I'm not crazy about that setting. The prongs (are they prongs in that picture?) just look obnoxiously large to me. I think some of the other settings that Gypsy found were much prettier than that one. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so you may love that one more than some of the other settings suggested on this thread.

In terms of platinum vs white gold, I prefer platinum. However, if you're on a budget and want a really intricate setting with pave, plus platinum, plus a nice sized, good quality center stone, you will probably have to compromise somewhere. I know lots of people who have white gold rings that they're very happy with.

 

[smilligan]

Niel - yes, the setting is already made. It was one that they had in house, and so I can't change the metal. White gold doesn't bother me at all. I just want to make sure that it's not prone to breakage. The head is pretty low, so I'm not too worried about it. I was told that they could add 5 half point diamonds to each side of the shank to make it pave and I'll probably end up doing it.

UberClaire - they are prongs. I actually asked the same question when I saw it, lol. I agree that they are much too visible for my taste, but the overall style of the ring is exactly what she wants. Plus, I really don't think it'll be noticeable from viewing distance. The reason I wouldn't opt for platinum at this point is because I'd end up spending $2k+ more just on the setting.

 

[Niel]

Niel - yes, the setting is already made. It was one that they had in house, and so I can't change the metal. White gold doesn't bother me at all. I just want to make sure that it's not prone to breakage. The head is pretty low, so I'm not too worried about it. I was told that they could add 5 half point diamonds to each side of the shank to make it pave and I'll probably end up doing it.

UberClaire - they are prongs. I actually asked the same question when I saw it, lol. I agree that they are much too visible for my taste, but the overall style of the ring is exactly what she wants. Plus, I really don't think it'll be noticeable from viewing distance. The reason I wouldn't opt for platinum at this point is because I'd end up spending $2k+ more just on the setting.

you dont "need" platinum. Gold is still a good metal for jewelry. Theyve been making rings out of gold sense forever. its not going to be "too prone to damage" and i think the setting as is is lovely. I dont think side diamonds would increase the visual appeal of the ring that much. I like the plain shank, and i dont think the 5 extra diamonds are going to add a whole lot to the ring, especially sense youd be adding a diamond w band to it.... but if she really needs it and its in budget then of course do it. 'could GOG show you it paired with a diamond band to see if you need the side diamonds?

I like where this is going and i think its going to be beautiful. Did you ask them about the prongs? if they could be shaved down at all while replacing the stones?

 

[smilligan]

Great ideas, Niel. I'll ask them for a pic next to a diamond band. I know my SO loves pave shanks and halos, but I agree that it's beautiful as is. It's $250 to add the pave, so it isn't out of budget. I don't want to mess with the integrity of the ring, though. I'll see what they say about it. As for the prongs, I never thought of that. I asked if they were/could be platinum, but I'll also ask about shaving them down. I don't know much, if anything, about crafting jewelry, so I'm just shooting in the dark. And you're right about gold. I probably just think too much.

 

[JulieN]

Those prongs are a deal breaker for me. I didn't even notice them until I read the thread. Now I can't unsee them.

 

[Rebecca0388]

Hello I just wanted to say that ring is so beautiful! Good work you have great taste I'm sure you're going to have one very happy lady

 

[msop04]

Those prongs are a deal breaker for me. I didn't even notice them until I read the thread. Now I can't unsee them.

Ditto. If the prongs were different, then I would like it...

You asked about white gold. If you decide to do it, DO NOT get 18K!! Since it has more gold content (gold is yellow), it will have to be replated a lot more than 14K... Here are some photos of my ering (18K) against my wedding bands (14K). Ering had been rhodium plated a few days before the wedding and of course the wbands hadn't been worn yet... this shows both rings about 3 or 4 months afterwards. The 18K ering had looked dingy for a while, yet the 14K bands looked brand new! I have been married since March and my wband looks just as white as the day I put it on! If you're on a budget, 14K is absolutely the way to go! Unless the setting is super duper thin, like 1.8 mm, then I don't think you should worry about any loss of metal over the years...

 

[msop04]

FWIW, I think this is the prettiest of all the settings posted...

http://www.gabrielny.com/engaged/style/ER8985W44JJ

 

[Niel]

Msop, I think the only reason its in his budget is its already made in 18k

 

[msop04]

Msop, I think the only reason its in his budget is its already made in 18k

Ahhhh... I see.

 

[smilligan]

Niel is correct. The setting is only within my budget because they no longer carry the line. Therefore, I can't change the metal. Some of these posts and info I've read elsewhere are worrying me, though. The prongs seem very visible and it is somewhat annoying, but I don't know if it's just the pictures. Other rings I've looked at (especially three stones) seem to have similar prongs, but the photos are brightened which makes them harder to see. If you look close enough, it's easy to point them out. The metal type, on the other hand, is a major component of the setting and it's not something that can be changed (without buying a new one). Has anyone owned an 18k WG Verragio setting? Does it wear quickly? Does anyone know the type of alloys used? I would think that designers like Verragio would alloy with palladium to lessen the yellowing effect. Some of the Gabriel rings are beautiful, and I think that I could find a platinum one within budget that she would love. But what's the quality like with Gabriel? Is it worth it? I'm going to compile a few pictures (including my current choice) and show them to my SO to get her opinion. If she says that her favorite is something other than the Verragio than I will most likely abandon my current choice in favor of something else. The center stone will most likely be the same, though. It really is the best deal I've been able to find so far. Here is a link to a video of it taken by GOG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6sWUpqyHYY&feature=share&list=UUe_V0Cpb5TXhi2j80WFLuLA. Mine is the one in the center. What do you guys (or girls, rather) think about the stone?

 

[Niel]

well rhodium, i dont think, wears off more or less depending on the alloy, usually it depends on the wearer. It could be 6 months it could be a year...

As for what alloy they use, have you checked their website? If it isnt listed they might have a way of contacting them and asking. I do know some places use palladium. Ritani, for one, to the point where a 14k white gold from white flash really doesnt even need plating.

the stone of course is a beauty!

 

[JulieN]

I looked at other pics of that setting, the prongs are the same. If they could be shaped, it would be ok, but still not my favorite setting in this thread.

Yes, show your gf the pics! Sometimes, they surprise you with which one they like best.

 

[smilligan]

Well, I wouldn't think that it would be too hard to shape the prongs into a point, but IDK. One more thing that bothers me about the setting I've currently chosen is that it looks flat. Is it just me or does the band seem almost rectangular and thin? Look at the last pic and then the first one with the ring on the finger. If you look closely, it almost looks like a washer. Am I just imagining this?

 

[Gypsy]

Okay first off all.

18K can be much better for cast pieces white gold. Why? It's not as brittle as 14k. For some designs, especially more complicated ones, 18K is a better metal.

Second, 18k does not need plating more often than 14k. How quickly rhodium wears is a function of body chemistry and the thickness and quality of the plating. Not the metal below it.

Next, I hate those prongs as well. And honestly Verrago's pave in person looks cheap in my opinion. I would ask that you go and look at their settings in person, locally at a retailer, and see what you think yourself before you buy.

On the other hand... it is in budget and has the filigree she wants and is a three stone with halo. If you like Verragio (some do) and GOG can get those prongs under control then it might still be a viable option for you.

 

[JulieN]

Yes it is more convex than the usual half round, but not as much as a knife edge.

 

[smilligan]

That's true, Gypsy. Honestly, the more I look at the Verragio, the more I dislike about it. I don't really like the profile view. It seems off to me. The main thing I love is the three stone halo, which is hard to find in my price range. I've compiled a list of several settings (most from Gabriel NY) that I will show my SO tomorrow. I took another look through the Gabriel platinum pieces, and 2-3 really stuck out to me. I've also heard that they will customize the setting based on your specifications, so I'm starting to lean in that direction. The diamond won't change. I've looked for similar stones up to $4000 and honestly, the one I've currently chosen is the best deal, IMO. The largest comparable stone I found was ~0.85 cts, I believe (for ~$3900). I've read mixed reviews about Gabriel pieces. Does anyone have personal experience with them? I've also read mixed reviews about their pave stones. I plan on going to view the settings in person next week. I have to work until Wednesday morning (12 hour night shifts), so it'll have to wait until then.

 

[UberClaire]

The last thing I'll say about that setting -- I wouldn't call that filigree. It has two scrolls and three bezel-set surprise diamonds, but it's really clunky looking to me. If she showed you that inspiration picture, I think she's going to be disappointed with this setting. That's just my two cents.

 

[msop04]

Okay first off all.

18K can be much better for cast pieces white gold. Why? It's not as brittle as 14k. For some designs, especially more complicated ones, 18K is a better metal.

Yes, this is why I Christopher Designs recommended it for my ring, but I really wish the alloy was different, so that I didn't have to plate so often...

Second, 18k does not need plating more often than 14k. How quickly rhodium wears is a function of body chemistry and the thickness and quality of the plating. Not the metal below it.

Maybe I should've said that the 18K will appear "dingy" more quickly than the 14K. I have read (on this forum) that this was due to the 18K having a higher percentage of yellow gold in it than 14K, which makes sense to me, but... I had my ering polished and replated about 6 weeks ago, but I could do it again now -- it's not bad, but I can tell a difference. Maybe the rhodium applied wasn't as thick as the last time?? Could it be that the bond of the rhodium is "stronger" to the 14K?

My ering is of much nicer quality than my bands. It's actually the first piece I've owned in 18K, and it needs to be plated about every 3-4 months (although it's only on the palm side, so I don't really do it that often). Maybe it is my body chemistry, but I have 14K rings from at least 5 or 6+ years ago that were not great quality, but they are still white and have never been replated.

I really baby my rings... I don't cook, clean, shower, wash dishes, or wear them anywhere that they might get wet. I even take them off when I wash my hands because I can't stand the feeling of moisture underneath my rings. LOL

In my experience, the 18K just requires more attention than the 14K -- unless you get a different alloy... which I could kick myself for at least not requesting it. Oh well... such is life.

Does anyone know if I could request that they "double plate" or thicken the rhodium next time? Is that a strange request? Has anyone done this??

Next, I hate those prongs as well. And honestly Verrago's pave in person looks cheap in my opinion. I would ask that you go and look at their settings in person, locally at a retailer, and see what you think yourself before you buy.

I agree. Verragio looks great in magazine and television ads, but I was very let disappointed when I got to see them IRL. Same with a lot of the Tacori designs, IMO. [/quote]

 

[smilligan]

Well, I showed pictures of the Verragio ring to my SO earlier and she absolutely loved it. She thought the three stone halo design was stunning face up. She said that she didn't really care about the prongs, but that she wouldn't mind having them shaped/made smaller, if possible. She also said that she liked the scroll work underneath the head. I did point out to her that the ring looked "flat", but other pictures of the ring online show a normal looking band. She said that she would prefer pave diamonds on the shank and I was told by Lynda at GOG that the melee diamonds are G/VS. I'm going to contact Diamonds Direct (the only jeweler around me that carries Verragio) and see if they carry this ring. Either way, I need to see it in person to be sure.

And honestly Verrago's pave in person looks cheap in my opinion.

Gypsy - would you mind elaborating on this comment? Is it the cut that looks cheap?

I also showed my SO several other rings from Gabriel & Co, including those listed in this thread. These were her favorites (other than the Verragio):

http://www.gabrielny.com/engaged/style/ER7478PT4JJ

http://www.gabrielny.com/engaged/style/ER7506PT4JJ

http://www.gabrielny.com/engaged/style/ER6995PT4JJ

http://www.gabrielny.com/engaged/style/ER6981PT4JJ

The last one seemed to be her favorite out of the Gabriel's, but she loved the pear shaped side stones from the second ring. If I could get them to put pear shaped side stones in the last ring, I think we'd have a very strong contender. I still want to see these in person, though. Does anyone know if GOG (or another reputable jeweler) can get Gabriel & Co rings for less than the prices listed on the website? I've read several posts from various people that state the Gabriel ring they got was several hundred dollars less than the list price. Honestly, I don't care if the setting is more expensive than the center stone, as long as it stays at $6k or below. I spoke with her about the cost of halo/intricate settings and the possibility of spending 90-95% of my budget on a diamond and having it set in a cheap solitare setting until I could afford a more intricate design, but she was against it. She said that she doesn't care about having a bigger stone and that she wants the ring I propose with to be her ring. She is small (4'11" with size 4.25-4.5 fingers), so even a 0.5 ct with a halo looks great on her. Also, she isn't a fan of large rings, huge centers, or thick bands. She prefers delicate, thin settings with distributed beauty between the stones and the setting. I told her that the face up view is probably going to be the most important because that is how most people will see the ring. Either way, she loves the settings that I've shown her and said that she would be happy with anything. I more of a long term thinker than she is, so I want something that she will love forever and not just in the moment.

Edit: She said that she's owned white gold rings before and they tend to fade pretty quickly on her (~6 months). Still, she said that she doesn't care whether it's platinum or white gold, but that platinum sounded "intriguing" once I explained the differences.

 

[smilligan]

msop04 - I have heard that the quality or thickness of rhodium electroplating affects the longevity. I have no idea how much, though.

 

[Niel]

A good place is ID Jewelry. They sell that brand and i do believe cheaper than the website states. I think the best way is to call them. Im not sure if anyone has recommended them yet, but I have seen them work just magic with peoples budgets. Ive seen them not, too, but when they hit it right its really out of the ball park!

 

[Niel]

ok, so im going to go back to ritani.. .

http://www.ritani.com/engagement-rings/three-stone-halo-diamond-band-engagement-ring-in-palladium/4812

this in palladium is like, what 2600, they have it listed in 18k for 3200? Ask them to do it for you in 14k white gold and its probably around 3k... ask them to make that for you in 14k

i have had a ritani white 14k unplated white gold. it was so white you would never have to get it plated.

they have a lot of stones that would work but this is the one id inquire about, being the size it is and the fact its in a halo, i dont think the color is an issue, but theyll ship it to a local store so you can see it!

http://www.ritani.com/diamonds/round-diamond-0-70-Carat-J-color-GIA-certified/D-Z2FS13

 

[smilligan]

Sigh. Why do you do this to me, Niel? Now I'm stuck on the three stone Ritani again. I really like the version you posted, but it's missing something that my SO really, really loves about the Gabriel setting - the pave stones underneath the head. My favorite ring of all time, however, does: http://www.ritani.com/engagement-ri...amond-engagement-ring-in-14kt-white-gold/6272. I also found some pictures from another PS thread showing the ring you posted with a 0.7 ct stone. Which gives me hope that I can fit the dream ring into my budget. I've emailed WF and Pearlmans to see what they could do with my budget. I've also emailed Ritani to see if they could add the pave stones from the more expensive band to the other one. That would be a good compromise, IMO. It just depends on the price. I also asked about the 14k WG. And they do offer the free in-store preview, but you have to place the full amount on a credit card hold to reserve it. This is not an issue of credit, because I have plenty, but I want to make sure that I am 100% about what I'm doing before I tie up my funds. I'm going to see if they have a stock setting at my local jeweler that I can look at. I do worry about the color, though. A J colored stone next to H colored side stones in a WG setting...I just don't know. Thanks for reminding me about the Ritani, though. So now the question is - should I get the Gabriel setting in platinum or the Ritani setting in 14k WG (if I decide to/they can make it)? Is the Ritani going to be higher quality? Is it really worth the extra money? I also think I'm gonna email ERD to get a quote on a Ritani "inspired" piece.

The pictures I found are below.