Help! I'm lost in the land of re-setting!

[mrs-b]

I'm planning to upgrade my setting and/or stone early next year.

I have an I VS2 3.61ct round brilliant. It's currently in a solitaire setting (see picture) which I love, but which I'd like to dress up a bit. I (currently) have large fingers, so what a 2ct stone looks like on someone else's hand looks like my 3.61 on my hand. Meaning that I have room either side of my stone in case I want to reset with side stones.

I have a few options. My first plan was to reset with 2 x 1.7ct stones on each side - giving me a 7ctw 3 stone. YUM. And don't even bother asking - my finger size can carry it! I already have one of these stones, so all I would need is one more, a setting, and I'm good to go.

But recently, I've been looking more closely at going up over the 4 ct mark, going up a grade in color, and up a grade in clarity - ergo a 4+ct H VSi stone. I'm color sensitive, so the I has always bugged me in profile ever so slightly. Ideally I'd like to go to a G, but it's just not in the budget unless I go down to SI1, and I'm trying to go UP in clarity - not down! The 4+ct H VS1 option is MUCH more expensive, but I think it would give me a look I would prefer. So here's the problem....

I've always said I'd do more for my next ring than just...prongs. I love solitaires, but on a large stone, I think they look a little unfinished, and I HATE prongs/claws/tabs/whatever-you-use-to-hold-the-stone-in-place. I definitely don't want to bezel this stone, as I'm not paying as much as I would be just to cover the increase I gain in diameter with metal!

I've thought about doing the upgrade - then setting it with pears (a setting I love!). This would give a nice degree of interest and break up that 'rock in prongs' look which bothers me about solitaires. But there's no way pears are ever gonna return light like a round brilliant, and if I'm going to add extra stones, I want them to give back as much light as my center stone. Halos on a stone this big can be wonderful, but since this ring will be in yellow gold, the colored metal in the halo will stop the melee from looking like an unbroken ring of sparkle, which is what I think is the whole point of a halo. As I mentioned above, I'm not fond of a bezel on a stone this size.

Ideally what I'd like is a solitaire that pushes the stone up, as per my current ring, but in SOME sort of setting that makes it more intricate from above than just prongs. I can always tizz up the basket, but I want more interest from above, not just in profile. Something that makes the center stone look more finished/dressed up. Ideally, I'd like to be able to wear this ring with my yellow gold eternity band, so they need to complement each other.

I am absolutely going out of my mind. To the extent that I've thought about just selling my current ring. So any help you can give me would be awesome!

ETA If I'm just being daft and should leave it as is, or remake it in the same style but with a better center stone, pls feel free to say! I'm open to all opinions at this point.

 

[whitewave]

Do a peek a boo collar like I did

 

[LLJsmom]

As a starting point, do you prefer four or six prong, or maybe even 8?

 

[mrs-b]

Do you have a link, whitewave?

 

[Niel]

What mm size would your new stone be?

 

[Niel]

I know of a few antique yellow gold settings you might be interested in I don't want to post them here but let me know if you're interested

 

[mrs-b]

Hi Niel

My new stone will be between 10.2 and 10.5mm. I'm not doing this till in the new year, so the stones I'm looking at now might change. I know what I'm after, tho, so I feel confident I'll find the stone that ticks all the boxes. So many solitaires taper near the stone. I actually prefer a setting like yours which widens slightly. Just makes the stone look more...seated, I think. Matthews1127 has a ring which belonged to her grandmother - I like that a lot. But I'd still like more detail from above.

 

[Niel]

If you might want to see the one I have saved send me an email you should still have it I think.

 

[mrs-b]

Done!

 

[mrs-b]

As a starting point, do you prefer four or six prong, or maybe even 8?

Hi LLJsmom

6 or over. I like 8, but am even considering 10. This baby is not going anywhere!

 

[BlingDreams]

Expensive, but have you considered MC2? https://www.mc2jewels.com/engagement

This one in particular might fit what you're looking for - https://www.mc2jewels.com/item/9238/round-brilliant-cut-diamond-bella-flora-ring-18kt-platinum

It has a little something extra around the stone and has interest but isn't overwhelming.

 

[whitewave]

You could do a more dramatic one for a larger stone, I suppose. I call it an anti-halo and you could keep your solitare look.

(I'm not offended if it isn't for you)

 

[SimoneDi]

@mrs-b you have a pretty awesome dilemma, 3.61ct going on 4 - I will say that even though I am working with smaller stones, I went (have been going) through a similar reset scenario. I *think* I settled on a three stone with smaller accent stones, so I obviously love your three stone idea, especially if your fingers can handle the ctw! Regarding a "dressed up solitaire", I absolutely love this setting: https://www.etsy.com/listing/237538848/cvb-dahlia-solitaire-setting it is so pretty and "complete" in my opinion without having a very busy design.

 

[caf]

Expensive, but have you considered MC2? https://www.mc2jewels.com/engagement

This one in particular might fit what you're looking for - https://www.mc2jewels.com/item/9238/round-brilliant-cut-diamond-bella-flora-ring-18kt-platinum

It has a little something extra around the stone and has interest but isn't overwhelming.

That Bella Flora is one of my all time favorites!

 

[pearaffair]

OP, I love what you have right now. Could you make the prongs thinner and not hate that?

Sounds like you're more ready for a bigger makeover though

 

[Gussie]

@mrs-b you have a pretty awesome dilemma, 3.61ct going on 4 - I will say that even though I am working with smaller stones, I went (have been going) through a similar reset scenario. I *think* I settled on a three stone with smaller accent stones, so I obviously love your three stone idea, especially if your fingers can handle the ctw! Regarding a "dressed up solitaire", I absolutely love this setting: https://www.etsy.com/listing/237538848/cvb-dahlia-solitaire-setting it is so pretty and "complete" in my opinion without having a very busy design.

I happen to love this setting too! That is my ring!
Agree too that this is a pretty awesome dilemma!

 

[MissGotRocks]

A four carat stone is a large stone no matter how you set it. I too am thinking in terms of Yssie's new ring - some embellishment on the sides of the setting to give interest but yet not adding to the overall width. I love a beautiful three stone too but would consider smaller side stones to add interest but not overwhelm the center stone. In that vein, thinking of your current stone with 1.7 side stones would be blingy for sure but if the eye is totally overwhelmed with the diamonds, the shape and beauty of the center stone is somehow lost - know what I mean? A ring with a beautiful profile is surely a plus but my favorite view of a ring is from the top down and that is always the vantage point I like to play up. My current three stone has a rather boring profile but when the wedding band sits next to it some of that view is lost anyway. None of this totally answers your questions but hopefully just gives some food for thought. Would be nice to have some thoughts from say Victor who seems to have a wonderful eye for proportions as well as ring designs. A four carat stone would never work for me but if I were to want something like that, I'd want it set to look flowy and elegant rather than knock your eyes out blinged out - lol!!

 

[mrs-b]

@ILikeShiny - thank you so much! You have now boggled my mind!! Those rings are stunning! I like the Bella Stretta, as it allows a wedding band to sit next to it - but you have to wonder if you'd even bother putting something next to that setting - it's amazingly gorgeous! I like its modern classic aesthetic - very much to my taste!

Hi @SimoneDi - you're absolutely right; it's an awesome dilemma! My problem is that the budget is...considerable, and I won't be in a position to upgrade ever again. Since my stone came through Blue Nile, I have to double my price every time I upgrade. If you google H VS1 stones over 4ct on their site, you'll see my problem - this really WILL be the last upgrade ever! No way will I EVER be able to afford to double that budget. Nor would I, even if I had that kinda dough. Anyway, all that to say, this is my one and only. I'm also veeeeery leery of resetting the same diamond over and over again, so I want to get it right first time - then never do it again.

Hi, @MissGotRocks ! The difference between me and @yssie is about....75,000 ring sizes! Delicate looks fabulous on her! It's lost on me. EW's work is as good as any out there - no question. And If I had size 4 fingers and money to burn she would probably be my first port of call for a solitaire. But I'm looking for a more substantial band at this stage of my life; if I had to pinpoint the one thing that I wanted to change most about my current setting, it would the taper near the head (I want flare, not taper) and the size of the prongs. If it were possible, I'd also like to go to 8 prongs.

The new ring will have to sit next to a substantial anniversary band which I wear as a wedder. So - for my aesthetic - lots of little stones, including pave, don't really work.

I know a lot of people like one center stone. But as I'm a woman of substantial proportion, I like a ring in proportion to me. I've also always thought that tiny dots on one's fingers are a bit of a waste, so I want something that is an accessory as well as a something detailed and well made (that MC2 ring is looking better and better!). No one, in general, gets within 5 feet of my hands. So if it has detail that can't be seen at a distance, it's not what I'l looking for. Which brings me back to the monster 3 stone, which, as you say, may simply be too big....

 

[tyty333]

I was thinking 4 carats with a split shank. That would add interest from the top view but not sure how you wedding band would sit with it. I particulary
like this one... (budget beware). You would need to add milgrain to your wedding band if it doesnt already have it (I cant tell).
http://erikawinters.com/Engagement-Rings-Helena-Split-Shank-Solitaire.html#.WZQ_flWGMdU

What about something like this...(but custom made for your 4 carat). The top two side stones could be the size of the stones in your wedding band.
This would be a whole lot of bling (maybe more than you want).
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...r-milgrain-diamond-engagement-ring-item-49486

Another option would be something like this with milgrain (custom made of course)
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...d-inspired-diamond-engagement-ring-item-41042

 

[mrs-b]

@ceg - the CVB dahlia is on my hit list and has been for a long time. For me, though, and what I'm looking for, my choice would be the original with the plat head, the gold shank, and the milgrain running down the center of the band. I had never seen that effect before the dahlia, and I LOVE it! And that head!! Oh, that head!!

@pearaffair that is DEFINITELY a possibility. Even if I go a completely different direction (and I'm thinking of that, also) I'll reset my original stone. There are elements I would change even if I stayed with essentially the same design. I'd thicken the shank, shrink the prongs, go to 8 prongs, and get the whole thing made by DKJ's uber bench, whose work is just eye popping. And the truth is - I do love my stone. It's clean and large and beautifully cut. It's possible I'm out of my mind for even considering changing it.

@whitewave - the collar on your ring is delightful and dainty to the max! I'll give it some thought to see if it could be a possibility, tho I think it's unlikely that it will work with my band and stone size. What a beautiful ring your asscher is!!

 

[meely]

Could you not do a halo in platinum then yellow for the band? Think the edwardians did this a lot and in IMO can look good.
Also what about doing very decorative shoulders? But use round brilliants so you will get the sparkle factor.
There was a stunning ring on here that had a ruby collar (not sure if that's the right term) it was Art Deco style if anyone knows the one I mean. (not suggesting ruby just the idea)

 

[meely]

This was the ring the ruby collar I was referring to, it belongs to decodaze
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ge-inspired-cvb-ring-with-ruby-collar.211983/
But there is another thread here as well
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...lease-different-style-of-prongs-maybe.225484/

 

[mrs-b]

If anyone has a link to the original dahlia with no sidestones and the milgrain down the center of the shank, could they pls post it here?

 

[SimoneDi]

@mrs-b I can completely understand that you want to get the reset right the first time around, which is why I think you should just take your time to look at and possibly even try on different styles. I think that you 1st need to decide if you want a solitaire of sorts, or want to go for a three stone ring, even if you are to use smaller side stones. Split shanks are great, but for a "forever" ring, I would choose a more classic style that would stand the rest of time. I also don't particularly love three stone rings with big bands, so maybe that is something else that you want to consider. Perhaps you can order a bunch of CZs and play around with some sizes?

 

[SimoneDi]

@SimoneDi that's the exact stone I'm looking at. Would you mind deleting that post? I'd rather people didn't see it; I don't want it to get snapped up!

Thanks!!

Lol sorry about that! Sure!

 

[mrs-b]

@SimoneDi -

Thanks so much for that!! Ugh - my stomach lurched when I saw the link there!! Good stones - of all sizes! - are snapped up on PS, and you never know who's lurking!

You are totally right about the three stone vs solitaire dilemma. If I could settle on one, I would have solved over half my problems I think.

 

[marymm]

Well, after reading this thread, my first immediate thought was, yes, do the 3-stone and find a design that makes the side-stones more pear-like (3 prongs or ?).

But I remembered I had saved this setting, and maybe the side crescents would add the extra interest you want? without the milgrain and the marquis diamonds on the shoulders? with finer prongs for center stone?

 

[mrs-b]

Hi @marymm - Very pretty setting! My favorite ring for years was a round brilliant, with curved half moons either side, then a tapered baguette. Very deco and gorgeous!

 

[mrs-b]

So one of these is a ring. And one of them is a rock in prongs. THIS is my dilemma.

But in profile, I think I prefer mine....



I wonder if I could do the dahlia, but have it modified to have an upwards swoop in profile? And I very much like the thicker shank on the Dahlia.

 

[BlingDreams]

So one of these is a ring. And one of them is a rock in prongs. THIS is my dilemma.

But in profile, I think I prefer mine....



I wonder if I could do the dahlia, but have it modified to have an upwards swoop in profile? And I very much like the thicker shank on the Dahlia.

I'm sure that could be done. That's the benefit of bespoke . As for the photo you're looking for, why not contact Caysie; she's bound to have it on file somewhere (unless you're not planning on using her for the project, in which case that might be a bit uncouth - lol)