Help me pick a cushion setting, please!

[CaliCushion]

I''ve posted a few times, and I was originally set on having a setting like this made. The center cushion will be approximately 1.75-2 carats. The problem is my huge fingers. I wear a size 10 ring. I want the diamond to look as large as possible on my big fingers. Is this a good option? I''ll post the other options immediately following this.

 

[CaliCushion]

This is another ring I like. My friends don''t seem to like it, however! Since the band is twisted, I thought it might appear wider and not make my fingers look to pudgy. I like that it''s semi delicate, but appears wider. It''s ring #6 in the picture.

 

[neatfreak]

I don't think you could get more finger coverage than that first ring!

 

[CaliCushion]

The final option is this ring by Martin Flyer. While the band is not super thick, it stacks with the wedding ring. Would this be a good option? Really delicate rings, while beautiful, don''t seem to be the best option for me (please tell me if I''m wrong). It''s so hard to find a beautiful ring that will make the center stone seem large on my large fingers! Thanks for all your help, and I''m open to other options.

 

[Haven]

I think all of these settings are very nice--they each definitely make a statement! I love the half moons in the first setting, at least I think they''re half moons. If I had to choose one, though, I''d pick the third setting--it''s still very feminine yet it has a nice, large presence.

Can you try to find these settings in a local jeweler so you can try them on and see which you like best on your hand? I was absolutely sure I wanted a super thin pave band for my solitaire until I tried a shared prong setting and fell in love. You can''t beat what you see with your own eyes.

Good luck, and let us know if you find something!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 8/3/2007 5:43:08 PM
Author: CaliCushion
The final option is this ring by Martin Flyer. While the band is not super thick, it stacks with the wedding ring. Would this be a good option? Really delicate rings, while beautiful, don''t seem to be the best option for me (please tell me if I''m wrong). It''s so hard to find a beautiful ring that will make the center stone seem large on my large fingers! Thanks for all your help, and I''m open to other options.

I''m with you... I don''t think super tiny bands make fingers look smaller... I think it makes fingers look BIGGER!

I think the best way to make a finger look smaller is to supersize everything, and luckily you are supersizing your diamond LOL. I don''t know that I would go so big that the ratio is different than what you would want on smaller fingers... but everyone has a preferential proportion that looks right on their hand.

 

[CaliCushion]

Haven-I only wish trying the rings on was on option! The rings at stores seem to be about a size 6, which doesn''t lend well to trying rings on. I get odd looks in jewelry stores--I don''t think they''ve ever seen someone who wears a size 8 clothes and a size 10 ring! My only option for seeing how rings look on my finger is to buy CZ rings from a place like QVC-- they make rings in large sizes. However, they don''t really have any settings close to the ones that I like.

And yes, the side stones in the first picture are half moons. Does anyone care to take a guess how wide the band on the first ring is?

Thanks again...

 

[sera]

The Beaudry ring is beautiful... looks very large. They have that ring at Pearlman's , I'm sure you could give them a call and get the width.

I love the third ring. It still looks pretty substantial though more feminine.

A halo will add the appearance of size to the center stone. I think when the shank splits and joins at the corners of the stone like the second ring or runs along the top and bottom of the center, the center diamond appears smaller to me. There was a ring that was similar to the second but the ends joined closer together which I think would make the center appear larger. I will try to find it and post the link.

Have you also considered a shared prong band? They could be bolder than a pave band... personally I would stay away from thick channel sets because I think the thick metal edges of the channels might be too much on a larger sized ring (though milgraining the edges seems to soften the look).

You have some beautiful options in rings. I've been buying silver/cz rings to get an idea of styles and sizes I want or don't want... it's really helped me.

 

[CaliCushion]

Sera,

The picture of the ring I posted was actually from Pearlman''s. The picture is of an 8 carat ring, so I''m sure it will look quite different when the center stone is 2 carats. However, it''s also on the Beaudy site, and the center stone looks a little smaller. http://www.michaelbeaudry.com/old-site/index.htm

 

[sera]

Date: 8/3/2007 10:45:27 PM
Author: CaliCushion
Sera,


The picture of the ring I posted was actually from Pearlman's. The picture is of an 8 carat ring, so I'm sure it will look quite different when the center stone is 2 carats. However, it's also on the Beaudy site, and the center stone looks a little smaller. http://www.michaelbeaudry.com/old-site/index.htm

I thought it might be from there since it had a black background like they use. I guess I was having a blonduh moment... didn't read it would be under 2ct. I really love Beaudry. Actually all three of the rings are very nice (and the more I look at the second one, the more I am liking it).

I can't find the other ring I was thinking of. Tacori makes one similar... where the curves meet at the side of the diamond in the middle... but that ring appears kinda dainty. I cannot recall the designer of the ring I saw. I was just thinking that if the center diamond extends past the band, the diamond would look bigger and perhaps elongate the finger.

Though a thick band can be feminine also... I think the curves and floral look of this Carl Blackburn ring would look nice is a size 10 while still being feminine.

 

[sera]

I still can't find the exact ring I was thinking of, but this Leon Mege is stunning and a good option if you like that type of band but decide you don't want a halo.

front view of ring

ETA: I tried to attach the pictures, but the Attach File button is not clickable for me.

 

[sera]

OK, I couldn''t attach the file in the previous post because I was editing. So here it is...

 

[CaliCushion]

Sera,

The band on that ring is really pretty! I don''t know how it would look with paves around the diamond though. Hmm...

 

[sera]

I think Leon's more rounded/softer halo rather than a hard edge halo would be lovely... something I keep flipflopping about myself. That twisted band with the softer halo... ooooooohhhhhhh

 

[ladyl]

How about this from Pearlman''s... The design does look chunky but more feminine... Main diamond would stand out (due to slight height/size diff with the side stones), think it does creat a slimming impact on the finger too... BTW what''s the shape of your cushion? Is it more of a square or rectangle?

 

[dani13]

I LOVE the Martin Flyer w-set. Just beautiful. If you are looking for extensive finger coverage and for your ring to look substantial, I would definitely go with a halo for your cushion....

Keep us updated on what you decide.....Good luck!!

 

[mrssalvo]

I think a halo with sides stones would be fab. and really give you great finger coverage.

 

[CaliCushion]

Sera,

You got me thinking...how do you think the softer halo (like on the leon mege ring) would look on the first ring (the beaudry cushion with half moon side stones and a hard edge )?

I''m still trying to figure out if I should only keep my options to 3 stone rings for the most finger coverage...

Why can''t I make a decision?!

 

[Stone Hunter]

It is an important decision. Take your time.

I do think that 3 stones will give you more finger coverage though. I like the first one you posted. Although I do realize that it''s 8ct and your stone will be smaller (not small though that''s for sure!)

HTH

 

[sera]

Date: 8/4/2007 5:53:29 PM
Author: CaliCushion
Sera,


You got me thinking...how do you think the softer halo (like on the leon mege ring) would look on the first ring (the beaudry cushion with half moon side stones and a hard edge )?


I''m still trying to figure out if I should only keep my options to 3 stone rings for the most finger coverage...


Why can''t I make a decision?!

I think it would be gorgeous and if you want more finger coverage that definitely does it. But, the Beaudry as it is is beautiful too; its halo doesn''t have a harsh edge to it at all (which I personally prefer though others may like a sharp edge), so customizing just that little detail may not be financially worth it (but if you aren''t limited on the budget and are willing to customize something to have it exactly how you want- go for it).

 

[decodelighted]

I saw a picture of a gorgeous three stone cushion Leon Mege the other day -- darn if I could remember which thread though. Middle stone was probably a 2-2.5 cushion with .75-1ct cushions on either side. It looked AMAZING & had a lot of coverage ... WITHOUT halos on any of the stones!

FWIW -- I wear a 10.5 ring ... & started out wanting a halo for a 1.5 ct is asscher or cushion. When I actually tried it on (and I mean on my pinkie or 1/2 way down my finger .. or holding them on top of my finger), it was way too "Viva Las Vegas" for my real life. I felt kinds silly in it. When the stones get bigger and the halo get bigger -- I dunno ... it's VERY blingy. I felt that it was embarrasingly blingy. But that's just my own opinion & for my own lifestyle. I ended up choosing something MUCH more traditional than I ever thought ... I think the best thread is RE-DECOation or something like that if you wanna see it on my hands.

Agree that the slightly wider bands hold up to beefier fingers than a super thin band -- especially higher ones and ones that taper toward the stone.

Anyone else know where that gorgeous three stone cushion pix is??? I am SPACING!!!

 

[sera]

Date: 8/4/2007 7:25:23 PM
Author: decodelighted
I saw a picture of a gorgeous three stone cushion Leon Mege the other day -- darn if I could remember which thread though. Middle stone was probably a 2-2.5 cushion with .75-1ct cushions on either side. It looked AMAZING & had a lot of coverage ... WITHOUT halos on any of the stones!
(snip)
Anyone else know where that gorgeous three stone cushion pix is??? I am SPACING!!!

I don't know where that one is, but this one is a 1.56ct cushion center. The band is a bit thin though. Although I am sure he could do a double row of pave on the top.

 

[CaliCushion]

Decodelighted and Sera,

The ring you showed me is really pretty! .75-1 carat side stones though? I did a search on pricescope and just the sidestones seem to be 1500-2000 each! The budget is about 20,000. While that is a lot of money, I think that 4,000 for side stones not including the setting is pushing it and that more money needs to go towards the center stone. If I do get a rihg with sidestones (which I seem to be leaning towards), the side stones probably need to be a little smaller.

My boyfriend and I actually talked to our friends jeweler about the Beaudry 3 stone ring. He said he''d make the setting for about 4500 total in platinum, and that the side stone half moons would be approximately .4 carats each. Total diamond weight for the paves and half moons would be about 2 carats. Does that sound about right to get the look of the beaudry ring?

Thanks for taking the time to help me, and keep any more suggestions coming!!