How do you like this setting?

[dreamer]

I am inclined on purchasing a Vatche Truffle setting with .75 center stone. Any comments on the setting?

Also, any suggestions on Platinum 3 stone setting (<$1500)? I gotta decide fast and running out of settings to consider.

Any help/input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[NewYorker]

I'm not a fan of that style, but I'm sure I'm in the minority. Make sure you think of what wedding band will fit next to it nicely. We never thought of that and now I'm stuck having to make a custom one. (pricey).
Good luck!

 

[Balustroid]

dreamer,

I'm afraid I agree with NewYorker. I would go for a less cluttered setting (4 prong solitaire, dainty shank, if to have side stones I would go for tapering baguettes.) I think this will show off the center stone more.

Good Luck!

 

[Beansy]

I agree with the last post. I would either have baguettes on the sides of a solitare, or for a very special look, check out one with pears on the sides. Very lovely.

 

[NewYorker]

Oh, yeah, my sister in law has the same style ring (with smaller side stones) and doesn't like how "cluttered" they are together. She's now looking for a new setting - 4 years later.
I love baguettes too - I have white gold center round .69ct and 2 side baguettes. I love it, but I know everyone has their own tastes.
One more thing, you may want to opt for a bit larger center stone and smaller side stones or it'll end up looking like an anniversary ring.
Just my opinion - get what YOU want. Just make sure you think of the next 70 years of looking at it.

 

[Hongerhond]

I agree with Balustroid and prefer something less cluttered. That is probably why I chose a very simple, clean tension setting. However, taste differs, thank goodness, and if you like a 3-stone ring, I think that one is really beautiful.

 

[aljdewey]

Guess I'm in the minority here (again)....because I love this setting.

I think it's classic, beautiful lines, and I don't think it's cluttered at all.

I do agree about making the side stones small enough proportionally to the center diamond to show off the center stone.

In fact, another one of the guys here (was it Nate?) just did this setting.......holy COW, it came out breathtaking.

Dreamer, there are as many different opinions as there are people. The reason there are so many choices is because different things appeal to different people. If you like this look, go for it! Remember, we can all tell you what we think....but we don't have to wear it, you do.

 

[fire&ice]

I like both the 3stone pictured & the baguettes on the side ring. I chose the later because it has a lower profile than the truffle.

I think in the size stones you are looking at the ring you posted will give the stone some "ump".

 

[Mara]

I particularly like the Vatche truffle because the side stones are set lower than the center, I don't like when they all three are at the same level. I really like the truffle setting for a 3 stone...it's classic IMO. The baguettes or emeralds etc to me are pretty but not classic...more trendy and/or period.

I think Nate got a 3 stone ring Vatche Truffle or was a similar style. Also there are others who have gotten this setting. Check out the 'Show me the Ring' forum here on Pricescope and see if you find some pictures to go with what you had in mind. It may help solidify the design in your mind or knock it out completely.

Good luck!

 

[ringbling17]

That was actually the first setting I got when I bought my ACA. Within five days it was on its way back to Whiteflash.
MY center stone was 1.5 carats and I had .27 pointers for side stones.
I didn't like it for a few reasons. It was set very low, no wedding band would sit flush with it. The sidestones were almost the same level as the center stone, so the center stone did not stand out the way I wanted it to and to me it made it look much smaller. The band itself was very thin, I think about 2 mm. or thinner and it kept turning to the inside of my palm because it was so heavy.
Plus, I wasn't happy with the workmanship of the band. It was thicker and uneven on one side of the band, like it had been resized or something and there were some unfinished/unpolished areas on it.
I wound up getting the Royal Crown instead and I love that setting.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/30/2003 3:24:21 PM Mara wrote:

I particularly like the Vatche truffle because the side stones are set lower than the center, I don't like when they all three are at the same level. I really like the truffle setting for a 3 stone...it's classic IMO. The baguettes or emeralds etc to me are pretty but not classic...more trendy and/or period.

Good luck!
----------------

Actually Mara, the jewelry historian in my has to disagree. The Baguette sides are a classic. The 3 stone ring is a relatively new phenom.

That said, I do think the truffle is "classy" looking although a new design.

 

[NewYorker]

Yes, fir&ice, you're right again. Baguettes are classic - my mom has 'em, I have 'em, and I see them in a lot of older women's rings too. The 3 round stone design is newer.

 

[Mara]

The baguettes may be considered classic by some in the sense that they have been around for a longer time, but in my mind they still look trendy...and it's also not what I would consider a 'classic' look. Possibly also because I have seen some really horrific pieces which to me look very 'period', 80's or 90's.

I see the round brilliant 3 stone ring as having a more classic *look* now and over time.

My two cents..

 

[fire&ice]

And I have seen more than my fair share of crappy & tacky three stone rings.

Only time will tell - but the baguette sides have a proven track record.

I don't know about CA; but here, the bag.sides are not & have never been "trendy" - just a classic - in fact I have been told boring.

Now, let's talk in 40 years & see what happens.

 

[ice_is_nice]

I personally prefer the simplicity of a solitaire but I do like the truffle setting you are considering. In the end it is really a matter of personal preference.

Good Luck!

 

[Mara]

Hmmm yes I have seen some horrific 3 stone round rings as well. I guess really almost the only setting I can think of that I have not seen some horrible representation of would be the typical classic solitaire....but I guess that also depends on what sort of center stone you have.

I suppose just about any setting can be ruined depending on 'tastes'...so fickle..hee hee..

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/31/2003 5:47:59 PM Mara wrote:

I have not seen some horrible representation of would be the typical classic solitaire....but I guess that also depends on what sort of center stone you have.

----------------

This, too, has been ruined - a big crappy center stone on too thin of a band. EEEKKK! That one was on ebay a while back. Frozen spit indeed.

I guess this thread stresses the importance of attaining a tasteful, well designed quality setting of whatever one's choice may be.

I have to say that nothing says engaged more than a solitaire.