I want an upgrade!

[cristinajanusz]

Hi, I''m new here! (But I''ve been reading posts for weeks.)
My fiancee is about to get his wedding band and it weighs in at 1.62 carats, (it''s a 2 row channel set invisible setting princess cut band) which beats my rock by 1.12, and it bugs me that his ring is bigger than mine, even though it just happened that way. I was being conservative when I picked out my ring, a .50 carat solitaire, because we are dead broke. I don''t want an eternity band even though that would make us about even, so I started looking at different settings. I hope my picture shows up...

Anyway, as the topic says, I want a bigger ring. And now I want a Verragio ring, which is even worse because they''re so expensive, but my local jeweler might be able to make a modified version of the one I choose for cheaper. So it is between the Insignia 7049D, which I would not change, and the Couture 0400 (which I can''t find a decent picture for the life of me, the closest is the Couture 0393 only it doesn''t have the two sidestones) which I would change the scrollwork on. I will try to post pictures of both right now, but it the meantime, which do you guys think is better? You can find pictures immediately on google.

My other question is if a halo would make a center stone look bigger, an incomplete halo like in the Verragio Couture 0400, or just two sidestones, or two larger sidestones and then stones on the rest of the band? I can''t answer this question myself and was wondering if anyone had an opinion. THANKS!

 

[cristinajanusz]

Yay! I uploaded a picture correctly my first try. So here is the Verragio Insignia 7049d... what do you think?

 

[cristinajanusz]

And here is the Verragio Couture 0393... I absolutely adore the basket, that is the reason I was drawn to this ring.

 

[HVVS]

If you want it to look larger, pick relatively large stones for the halo.

See halo rings thread
older halo thread


.51ct from that thread

 

[chrono]

Are you aware that your single 0.5 ct stone probably costs as much as, if not, more than your fiancee’s wedding band? If you want your original stone to appear larger, I suggest putting a halo around it. In additional, it will add to the total carat weight.

 

[ms.halo]

Date: 12/17/2009 2:36:46 AM
Author:cristinajanusz
I was being conservative when I picked out my ring, a .50 carat solitaire, because we are dead broke.

This comment concerns me--you shouldn''t go into debt over this. If you are dead broke why not wait until an anniversary to make this change? The longer you wait, the more money you might have to ensure you get exactly what you want.

I do think a halo will make your diamond look much larger, more so than any other change. There are so many to choose from that I''m sure you can find one that''s less expensive than the Verragio.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 12/17/2009 2:41:42 AM
Author: cristinajanusz
Yay! I uploaded a picture correctly my first try. So here is the Verragio Insignia 7049d... what do you think?

I love this one.

 

[cristinajanusz]

Date: 12/17/2009 9:04:31 AM
Author: Chrono
Are you aware that your single 0.5 ct stone probably costs as much as, if not, more than your fiancee’s wedding band? If you want your original stone to appear larger, I suggest putting a halo around it. In additional, it will add to the total carat weight.

Although both our rings only cost around $1,000, I am still curious why you say they would cost the same, because I thought it was just coincidence.

 

[cristinajanusz]

To HVVS - Thanks for the pictures. I definitely see why the halo makes the center stone seem bigger.

To ms.halo - I wouldn''t go into debt over it, I know the consequences. The upgrade would be within the next few years when we do have the money for it. I agree that I will have more money to put into the ring later on.

Vespergirl - Thanks! I am wondering if this kind of halo would be right for me. I like it a lot and can have it made cheaper than what Verragio sells it for.

 

[HVVS]

ou're welcome. I was in a hurry earlier. I like the settings you picked, but they will be expensive. If you want to make .5ct look bigger, the bigger diamonds in the halo would probably give it the most boost. Unless you are a big ring size, the diamonds down the shank wind up between your fingers or at the bottom of the ring. I'd put most of the diamond weight into the halo itself and maybe even no diamonds in the shank. But I'm not a fan of micropave. I gravitate more toward the original art deco looks and the halos that were trotted out in 2002-2006 or so. Those have larger points diamonds in the halos and a bolder look.

Metro's .52ct RB ring w/ halo was what I was thinking of.

Metro's thread


I love this idea, too.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/it-was-in-his-guitar-case.31577/

 

[cristinajanusz]

Thanks for the advice.
Yeah, I''m liking the halo settings but not a halo only around the center stone, I like the halo to go around the center and two side stones. I wonder if these are common or if I can find different pictures that aren''t Verragio. And I wonder if my taste will change dramatically.

 

[Dreamer_D]

You might like this thread:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/solitaire-to-halo-before-and-afters.130309/

 

[cristinajanusz]

Thanks! Love that thread. I definitely know I like the first Verragio setting I posted better now. Have to go try it on again.