Kissing Diamonds

[lala0306]

I searched for posts on this topic and didn''t find any, have a general question, does setting a small diamond culet to culet under the center stone do anything for the center stone or is it just purely a design issue?

Here is information re kissing diamonds for anyone who is interested, I''d never heard of the design and happened across a saleswoman in Key West who said the setting itself gives the center stone more "sparkle" How would that work?

http://www.kissingdiamonds.com/

Thanks!

I posted this in SMTR, should probably go here...sorry! new to this

 

[fabcrab]

Ok since this thread is in rocky talky as well as SMTR I will just paste my earlier post:

I''m not an expert but I just want to say, that concept is WEIRD! It seems almost kind of a waste, because you can''t see the top of the bottom diamond. I don''t know how I feel about this . Actually, I may be alone here but it kind of bothers me a little bit and I don''t really know why.

I would also like to add that the website claims two diamonds are of "perfect compatibility and symmetry". I don''t understand how something can be symmetric if one of the bottom diamond is smaller than the top.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/28/2008 6:44:05 PM
Author:lala0306

I searched for posts on this topic and didn''t find any, have a general question, does setting a small diamond culet to culet under the center stone do anything for the center stone or is it just purely a design issue?

Here is information re kissing diamonds for anyone who is interested, I''d never heard of the design and happened across a saleswoman in Key West who said the setting itself gives the center stone more ''sparkle'' How would that work?

http://www.kissingdiamonds.com/

Thanks!

I posted this in SMTR, should probably go here...sorry! new to this

It wouldn''t add anything at all to a well cut RB.
Marketing at its worst.......

 

[Ellen]

Weird, and I agree, a waste. It''s not going to do anything for either diamond.

 

[lala0306]

I thought it was weird as well, why spend $ on an extra stone that basically faces the back of your finger? The saleslady was so excited about it and I just didn''t get it...Thanks

 

[iheartscience]

Hmm, it''s weird but kind of cool. I actually really like the bezel set ring with an open side view so you can see the smaller diamond. I didn''t read any of their marketing stuff, though, just looked at the products.

 

[Cleo]

Heeehee! I nearly posted on this a few weeks back, when I saw some of these rings in Beaverbrooks, in England.

I thought they were quite funky... but the extra, upside down diamond, is really quite pointless other than to be unusual, or something of a talking point.

Cool idea, but I figured it was just another way to get you to buy overpriced, second rate jewellery (IMHO)!

x x x

 

[arjunajane]

Geez, they spelt it "CUTLET" in part of their site - dags!
I also agree it''d be a bit pointless - not a fan of the sappy advertising either.

 

[KatSullivan]

There''s no way it would add anything to the sparkle of the main diamond...the physics just don''t work out. My friend has a sapphire set like that under her diamond. It is beautiful, but certainly doesn''t add anything! Marketing if you ask me...

 

[Selkie]

That reminds me of this style that was around a couple years ago where a colored stone (I think usually a sapphire) was set under the diamond. Not culet to culet, though. I''m guessing they weren''t very popular since it took a LOT of google searches to turn up the style and brand name, Reflexions.