Hey! Give me your advice on my WF new setting!

[Crazie4Cuts]

Hello! I’m getting an upgrade for my birthday! So please look at the profile pic I received from Whiteflash! The ring hasn’t been sent to me, but there is something which is causing me to pause before I give final approval. I’m ok with the height of the setting! It is a semi-custom Cadence setting with platinum head and 18k rose gold band. I requested that the head finish height be no taller than 7.8mm and from the picture that looks good.

I think it has to do with how the side ’v’ (groove? See the red arrow where I am pointing to in the picture.).I don’t know what that is called but the ‘v’ seems rather squatty and not as elegant as in the original Cadence picture, so what to do? Any ideas on how to explain this area of concern?

Thank you in advance,
-C4C

Picture that WF sent to me of the profile






See red arrow of concern and compare to Cadence image.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think the stock photo shows a smaller diamond than yours and that may dictate the setting height of the diamond. Your diamond doesn’t look like it is set as high which I like personally. I think that small area of the ring is hard to squabble over but it is your ring and should be as you like. Send them the message and your pics and see what they say. I think the ring looks beautiful!!

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

Hi @MissGotRocks! Thanks for the feedback and you got great eyes! Yes the diamond is larger! So appreciate your feedback on the height and I’ll reach out to WF and see if they can make the ’v’ deeper and also that area slimmer. Anybody else had this problem and other advice?
-C4C

 

[ac117]

@Crazie4Cuts I think if you zoom in on the stock image, what you’re actually seeing is a reflection. The V cutout seems to end exactly where yours does (red line), but there’s a shadow (maybe camera reflection?) that’s going up to the green line that makes the cutout appear higher. But if you look at the actual diamond, that longer part can’t be the cutout because then you would see the culet and we don’t. Just my thoughts but it doesn’t hurt to reach out to WF to see what they say!

 

[Slickk]

Great point by @ac117 ! I agree it is most likely a reflection you’re seeing.
I actually favor your profile to the stock photo. In addition, I wonder if the height of the stone is also in play. Yours has a lower profile and I love it!!! Beautiful!

 

[Lookinagain]

@Crazie4Cuts I think if you zoom in on the stock image, what you’re actually seeing is a reflection. The V cutout seems to end exactly where yours does (red line), but there’s a shadow (maybe camera reflection?) that’s going up to the green line that makes the cutout appear higher. But if you look at the actual diamond, that longer part can’t be the cutout because then you would see the culet and we don’t. Just my thoughts but it doesn’t hurt to reach out to WF to see what they say!

good catch and I think you are correct.

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

@MissGotRocks, @ac117, @Slick1,@Lookinagain! Thanks for the feedback and I’ll reach out to WF and let you know what they say!

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

@Crazie4Cuts I think if you zoom in on the stock image, what you’re actually seeing is a reflection. The V cutout seems to end exactly where yours does (red line), but there’s a shadow (maybe camera reflection?) that’s going up to the green line that makes the cutout appear higher. But if you look at the actual diamond, that longer part can’t be the cutout because then you would see the culet and we don’t. Just my thoughts but it doesn’t hurt to reach out to WF to see what they say!

Good catch. It kinda looks like the stock photo airbrushed out the diamond in the space between the V. MRB don’t usually have pavilion points that end above the sides of the diamond :p

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think yours looks great! You asked for your setting not to be high and the head is not going to be as tall as the other image. I actually think yours looks better. Remember than when you are wearing it, you'll be looking at a fraction of the size of these images!

 

[headlight]

I think yours looks better than the stock photo!

 

[kb1gra]

I think this is because your stone is set half as high as the stock photo. The proportion of the cutout is the same on both, the prongs are just physically longer on the other ring that is set higher.

 

[caolsen]

I think yours looks better than the stock photo!

Agree. The stock photo looks flimsy to me. your head looks nice and strong, holdi g your diamondmore securely.

 

[tyty333]

I think your setting looks beautiful!

 

[luvmysparklies]

Your setting looks way better to me too. I personally like when a setting looks "filled to the brim" with diamond, without much air space around it! I have experienced that this is how the prongwork/setting looks when the prongs are customized to the diamond. Many Tiffany rings are like this.

 

[DejaWiz]

This is a result of your diamond setting height being lower than what is depicted in the stock photo: less prong height = less "V" shaped space between the prongs.
Your ring looks exquisite!
If you want a more pronounced "V", then the diamond setting height needs to be raised.

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

Hello lovelies!
Wowee, thanks for all the responses. I did ask WF if the ‘v’ could be extended and if the prong struts (for lack of better term see picture below) could be made slimmer. I received a reply back from Vera earlier today and here’s the response:

”’xxxxx shared your inquiry with me and our Production Manager. The Production Manager and our Master Jeweler have re-inspected your ring. Due to the request to have the diamond set so low, they are not able to thin out the prongs or the head itself any further as this will cause structural weakness.

Please keep in mind that the image is blown up and these features may look accentuated but in real life are not so prominent.”

So there you go. I’m glad though my requests were not dismissed and my concerns were addressed! (just to repeat, I did want my finished height to be no taller than 7.8mm. I originally asked what height would my diamond be set at and it would have been around 11mm finished height )

Side note: it is always good to ask about finished height. BTW, my diamond dimensions is 7.24x7.29x4.51mm. - 1.45ct. The finished height is really important to me because I‘m clumsy and don’t want to injure my ring… and myself. In order to do this WF had to modify the ring to make an azur? I think it’s a hole in the bottom.. it was not important for me to see the culet of the diamond. But if it is important for you to see the culet, then be aware that your setting height may be higher if you have a large diamond..I am sure though it will depend on the setting you choose.

I hope this helps others if you decide on this or future settings.

Ok y’all thanks so much! I hope to share on Show me the bling… when it arrives!

-C4C

 

[tyty333]

They said it would be at 11mm for a 1.45 stone? Are you sure? That's so high it doesn't sound right.

 

[AprilBaby]

Yours looks so much sturdier than the Original. I think I prefer yours.

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

Hi @tyty333!

I asked Becca about the finished height for the Cadence setting and here’s her reply:

”Production time would remain the same as listed online but the setting would be considered non-returnable and non-refundable after purchase. They also let me know they'd estimate a finished height between 10-11mm with the diamond you've got on hold.”

-C4C

 

[tyty333]

Hi @tyty333!

I asked Becca about the finished height for the Cadence setting and here’s her reply:

”Production time would remain the same as listed online but the setting would be considered non-returnable and non-refundable after purchase. They also let me know they'd estimate a finished height between 10-11mm with the diamond you've got on hold.”

-C4C

Wow... that's crazy!

What did you ask for that would make it non-refundable?

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

@tyty333 - It is a semi custom setting as I wanted a platinum head and one gold band. That combo made it non-returnable…

-C4C

 

[mrsctobe]

It looks beautiful, but 11mm is really high, I agree. I think 7.5mm would be the perfect height, but that is just my opinion!

 

[tyty333]

@tyty333 - It is a semi custom setting as I wanted a platinum head and one gold band. That combo made it non-returnable…

-C4C

Got it! I assumed it was off-the-shelf rose gold with white gold head! Anyway, I think it looks lovely and it looks like its at the
height it should be at.

 

[-hope-]

Hi. I know this is old but I’m looking to change my plain solitaire to the cadence setting. Did u end up liking the ring? Can you also show pix? And finally. Does it sit flush with a wedding band or is there a gap? I would really appreciate your feedback before going with it

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

Hi! I do like my new setting and wear my ring daily. I am glad I changed out the head to platinum, but I wish my shank was slightly wider to 2mm -2.3mm. My shank measures at 1.85mm (I own a digital caliper and just measure the width) which for me is slightly thin and makes a difference.

My wedding band does not sit flush and I did not want the matching cadence diamond band (there is a slight donut). Also the height is perfect (no higher than 7.8mm) and here are some pics for ya! Hope (teehee) this helps!! I am wearing a spacer band between my engagement ring and the Bottom diamond band to prevent the diamonds from ‘sawing’ each other over time. The bottom band is 18k rose gold from Costco. Thickness is about 1.5mm thick.

-C4C

 

[-hope-]

Thank you so much for posting the pictures! The ring looks so pretty! the platinum head also looks beautiful. It seems WF changed their Yellow gold and Rose gold setting after making yours. All of them have a white head now.

I was between the harmony setting, cadence and the French-set diamond.

https://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/cadence-diamond-engagement-ring-6121.htm

https://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/diamond-settings/harmony-diamond-engagement-ring-878.htm

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...s/french-set-diamond-engagement-ring-2547.htm

Each one has a concern for me:

1) Cadence:
I wanted a regular u-cut pave instead of a "fishtail" (but seeing your ring is making me reconsider this.



2) Harmony:
The shank is wider than the cadence (2.5 mm vs 1.9 mm) and it looks like it has more metal than diamond. I checked the CTW of each rings and it confirmed my concern: Same number of diamonds on the side, but Harmony has less CTW! (Harmony is 0.36, Cadence is 0.45) meaning the diamonds ARE smaller, and the shank is wider! I want more diamond / less metal.

Also the harmony's diamond would sit higher due to the shape of the ring in the head. I like the diamond to be as low as possible without looking squatty. Like how your ring looks: Low but not squatty.

3) French-Set:
I like that this one is not fishtail pave. It has a good width / shank (2.1 mm) the diamond CTW is 0.45 like the cadence.. but! there is always a but with me
I don't like how the diamonds (rise) next to the center stone. There is more metal visible. It is so clear when we look at the Cadence and French-set side to side.





(the one with the red marking is the French-set, for those who didn't know)

What I like:

https://www.bluenile.com/pr/en/enga...ave-diamond-engagement-ring-in-platinum_60613

This setting from Blue Nile. I have the matching band but full eternity:

https://www.bluenile.com/pr/en/wedd...ite-pave-eternity-diamond-ring-platinum_42409

the 1/2 CTW (1.8 - 1.9 mm width) like the cadence but not fishtail pave.

I want to go with WF because I love their ACA diamonds. They are also better color than Blue Nile ( WF has F/G color VS, Blue Nile has H color VS2)

My center stone is WF ACA E color. So I am concerned with the side stones color.

Also, I don't like how Blue Nile has diamonds half the ring. The Cadence go all the way down 3/4 of the ring.

The cadence also has 6 prongs which I like.

So this is my delimma but typing this made me realize I like the Cadence the most. I want to go with platinum, but here is my new issue with the cadence:

I like the Cadence more as a yellow gold or rose gold because there is prongs visible between the diamonds, and because of the contrast of the yellow gold and white diamond it looks beautiful and the diamonds stand out.

However with white gold or platinum I'm afraid it's gonna look less sparkly because the metal and diamonds would blend together. I would prefer to have no visible prongs between the diamonds, like the one from Blue Nile.

OMG why do I complicate everything

 

[-hope-]

ok here is a better comparison pictures (I'm new here, didn't know there was a 45 minutes limit to edit the posts and took my time editing the pix)



This one shows how the harmony has more metal compared to the Cadence



and this one shows how the French-Set has more metal near the center stone

I saw in another post (@ Gemly) posted these pictures that she got from WF of the cadence with a 2.9 center stone





I think the ring also looks pretty in white and the prongs are not as visible as I thought!

 

[emmy12]

The simple answer: usually everything can be customized if you ask! Changing to a wider shank, a change in the pave style, bigger melee on the Harmony shank...etc. Of course any changes make the piece semi-custom, nonhreturnable, and additional cost

 

[-hope-]

The simple answer: usually everything can be customized if you ask! Changing to a wider shank, a change in the pave style, bigger melee on the Harmony shank...etc. Of course any changes make the piece semi-custom, nonhreturnable, and additional cost

You are absolutely right.. I just wanted something that was already made with minimum modification to avoid the explanation part / custom design fees and all that hassle

 

[emmy12]

You are absolutely right.. I just wanted something that was already made with minimum modification to avoid the explanation part / custom design fees and all that hassle

It sounds like you know exactly what you want though...

Cadence Diamond Engagement Ring | 6119

Capture hearts with the Cadence Diamond Engagement Ring. Shop now at Whiteflash and symbolize your love story with everlasting beauty. | 6119

www.whiteflash.com

That ring, but with U-cut pave