James Allen--now I''m really psyched!

[katiedid]

So I found a James Allen set that is very similar to the Gottlieb set I like. But it''s less money, slightly higher total carat weight, higher quality color, higher clarity grade. Sounds like a winner to me! Only one thing--my center stone is an I in color. The James Allen set is "F or better". They said I could request a different color to better match my stone. I want it to match and look like it was made together--not like a mismatch. What should I do?????

Sounds like lots of people on here love James Allen huh?

 

[mrssalvo]

katie what size are the side stones? Depending on the size I think you could go g-h next to your I stone and probably not see a difference but I''d ask the folks at JA what they think....

yes, they are a well respected vendor around here...

 

[FireGoddess]

Typically a good rule of thumb is to stick within 2 color grades of your center stone...I''d make sure with them that it looks good with your I.

 

[kcoursolle]

Ditto the question about the size of the sidestones. I have an F center stone and the little pave melee are I/J''s and I can''t tell a difference. I can tell a very very slight difference between my F stone and my .31 stones in my five-stone band that are I''s.

 

[katiedid]

I took my ring (with my center stone) to my jeweler today and had him measure it and tell me what color he''d grade it. He''s a gemologist and he took out his little kit with all the diff. color diamonds. He said it was an H. He said "I at the worst, but I''d think G side stones would look fine. You can go a little whiter on the side stones since the center is set higher and they''re not laying side by side as they would in a 3-stone type setting."

As far as the size of the stones, there are 9 in the w-band and 8 in the e-ring and the total weight is 1.05 carats. So that would make each stone a little over 6 pts each right? I think I can request G or G/H stones instead of the F.

I wonder if there''s any way they''d send me a set (not made to my specs) and just let me see what my center stone would look like in it, size wise and color wise. Then I could send that set back and order one for my stone, in my finger size.

Do you all think my center stone would be ok in it (as far as size)? It''s 3/4 carat princess and measures 4.9 x 4.65 and is roughly 3.5 deep. Does a princess cut look good in these bands with round side stones? I would think it would set off the center stone.

Here''s the set: http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-matching-bands.asp?module=setting&cid=59&item=1201&name=8849p

 

[JulieN]

i think it''s too big. 6/7 pts would be fine with a 1 ct round, but a 3/4 ct princess, it''s on the chunky side.

 

[katiedid]

They have another set that is the same total carat weight but has more diamonds--it has 21 instead of 17. So 5 pts each. Still too chunky? What do others here think? Are these rings (either or both) too big for a 3/4 carat princess? The weird thing is that the set with more, smaller diamonds is over $500 more than the set with fewer, larger diamonds.

 

[katiedid]

One more piece of data here... I did a little homework and in my current setting, there are 8 princess cut channel set stones in the wedding band and 10 in the e-ring. And each ring has 3/4 carat, so that would mean in my current set, the side stones are 7.5 - 9 pts each. They are channel set, so maybe that makes a difference, but they don''t look chunky.

Here are the other sets I''m looking at. One is the same as the first one I mentioned, just smaller stones. The other is a pave band with .90 carats total (as opposed to 1.05). I''d love feedback from you guys. What looks best with a 3/4 carat princess?
(Or do none of them look good???)

Version of first ring (still has 1.05 carats total) but with 21 total stones instead of 17. That would make them 5 pts each. They call this "eternity style" but it''s not--the diamonds don''t go all the way around...
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-matching-bands.asp?module=setting&cid=59&item=262&name=1909p

Pave set that has .90 carats total sidestones. So they''re 2 pts each.
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-matching-bands.asp?module=setting&cid=59&item=1459&name=R805b

 

[jayreneepea]

Date: 4/10/2007 10:13:39 PM
Author: katiedid
One more piece of data here... I did a little homework and in my current setting, there are 8 princess cut channel set stones in the wedding band and 10 in the e-ring. And each ring has 3/4 carat, so that would mean in my current set, the side stones are 7.5 - 9 pts each. They are channel set, so maybe that makes a difference, but they don''t look chunky.

Here are the other sets I''m looking at. One is the same as the first one I mentioned, just smaller stones. The other is a pave band with .90 carats total (as opposed to 1.05). I''d love feedback from you guys. What looks best with a 3/4 carat princess?
(Or do none of them look good???)

Version of first ring (still has 1.05 carats total) but with 21 total stones instead of 17. That would make them 5 pts each. They call this ''eternity style'' but it''s not--the diamonds don''t go all the way around...
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-matching-bands.asp?module=setting&cid=59&item=262&name=1909p

Pave set that has .90 carats total sidestones. So they''re 2 pts each.
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-matching-bands.asp?module=setting&cid=59&item=1459&name=R805b

I like the .90 carats set best.

 

[E B]

Definitely the .90ctw pave.

 

[kcoursolle]

I love the set with the 2 pointers. It''s gorgeous, and really I wouldn''t worry about the color of the stones at all. With stones that small you aren''t going to be able to tell one bit of difference.

 

[mrssalvo]

i vote for the set with the 2 pointers too. love that look...

 

[katiedid]

Thanks for the feedback guys! I like the pave set too but I''m concerned about 2 things--I don''t know if I like the feel of the diamonds all the way around the band (ie between my fingers) and I worry that it won''t look substantial enough, compared to what I have now.

 

[Finding_Neverland]

Date: 4/10/2007 10:13:39 PM
Author: katiedid
One more piece of data here... I did a little homework and in my current setting, there are 8 princess cut channel set stones in the wedding band and 10 in the e-ring. And each ring has 3/4 carat, so that would mean in my current set, the side stones are 7.5 - 9 pts each. They are channel set, so maybe that makes a difference, but they don''t look chunky.

The new set with rounds could potentially look chunky with your 3/4 ct center Princess.

You currently have Princess accent stones. Prins have a smaller face up appearance than comparable carat weight rounds would have.

Instead of accenting your center stone, larger round melee could detract from your center stone.

That''s why people are suggesting the smaller sized round melee for your setting.

If you aren''t comfortable with having melee all the way around the ring, look for a set that''s 50%-75%.