It''s time to think of the wedding band!

[gwendolyn]

Date: 4/27/2008 10:18:04 AM
Author: Harriet
Not that I''d turn down an asscher eternity.


Not at all. I don''t think so. I asked him to make it as thin as possible. Diamondseeker''s, e.g., is 2mm I believe. Is that the setting you have in mind?

It''s one of my final two (the other being the Torchiere by Mark Morrell), but since my fingers are bigger I''d need a thicker shank than what you have since a delicate setting like that would look out of place on my hand. I''m also not sure what size stone we''ll be able to afford, but it will be relatively small (by PS standards anyway

), so I''m not sure how that setting will look if it''s considerably smaller. My boyfriend J prefers it because of the elegant simplicity.

Thank you for your replies, Harriet and Ellen. 2mm would probably be ok, although I might want to go a little bit wider. Maybe 2.2? Hmm....decisions, decisions.

 

[Harriet]

Gwen (if I may), because the setting is delicate, it accentuates the stone, which you might like.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 4/27/2008 10:56:08 AM
Author: Harriet
Gwen (if I may), because the setting is delicate, it accentuates the stone, which you might like.

You''re right, I would like a thinner shank for that reason, to make the stone look bigger, but I am afraid it will look out of place because my fingers wouldn''t match it, if that makes sense? My ring size is somewhere between 8.5-9.0 (depending on who''s done the measuring), and I guess I worry that my finger size would overpower the band. I don''t know if that''s something that actually happens or if it''s just me being paranoid... I think the thinnest I would do is 2mm; I currently have an aquamarine and diamond ring that my boyfriend gave me for Christmas that has a 2mm band and sometimes I think it looks good, and other times I think it looks too small.

Sorry! I didn''t mean to hijack your thread! I''ll stop rambling now.

 

[Harriet]

No worries.