If you have thin, small hands...

[alirogers20]

I''m debating- I''ll have to go into a store this weekend and play with rings.

Do you prefer your diamond set in a plain setting with eternity bands, or a more embellished setting with plain bands (to be upgraded down the road). I have a 1ct stone, currently in a wide/modern setting.

Pics would help too- my hands are small, think 9 year old boy small and size 4 1/2 ring (loose on a cold day).

Would love to see any pictures, also, of very thin settings.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I have 3.75 hands with a .78ct stone in a plain 6 prong setting. My setting isn't particularly thin, but I'll show you pictures of a channel set band and a prong set band (.05) next to my ering. The .05 stones are a little big for my diamond, I think.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

With channel set band:

 

[bluedawg]

I think you'll just have to look at different settings to see what you like on your hand. Sounds like fun to me!

I have a 3 1/2 finger and there isn't much room for wide settings. I just upgraded for my 10th anniversary and chose a very thin set (<2mm). I wear the set with my original wedding band sometimes, and it is 3.5mm wide... that pretty much eats up my entire finger!

Looking through the SMTR-Eye Candy thread may help. Most people list their ring sizes in the specs.

My diamond is also 1.0 cts and the melee on the bands are 4-pointers.

 

[mrssalvo]

Definitey go and see some things in person. I am recently trying to decide for a new home for my solitaire. I love so many settings and it''s hard to narrow it down. I considered a 3 stone for more bling and when i tried one on, it just didn''t look flattering on my hand, which is a 3 1/2. You will get a better perspecive seeing rings in person.

 

[alirogers20]

I want something a lot like bluedawg- I initially DID have a thin setting, and I know what I want (I preferred the thin to what I have now by long-shot).

Thanks, I''ll check out the other post.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 4/13/2005 8:45:15 AM
Author: bluedawg

Looking through the SMTR-Eye Candy thread may help. Most people list their ring sizes in the specs.

Excellent suggestion. Careful though, you can lose an entire day going through that folder

Looking around in 'real life' will be the best way to get size perspective once you've sampled the buffet of photos.

Nice photo, Blue.

 

[Jodi]

I am a size 4 and find that my rings can''t have lots of side stones or really wide bands - they''re uncomfortable after an hour or so. For me, even though the center stone can be large, the setting itself has to be rather thin and delicate otherwise it looks like I''m wearing my mother''s ring. I like the band on the sides to be really close to the finger, and with not much going on.

On the positive side, having smaller hands can be lovely and I think, feminine, so all the antique settings look really nice on us smaller handed girls. We''ve got lotsa options out there right now.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Jodi - have you considered baguettes, mounted parallel with the line of the ring?