Last Minute Decision: Michael B.-style band width

[bjd006]

I am having Whiteflash create a ring for me. It is a pave band with a beautiful 1.01 carat pear-shaped center stone. I had them model the ring after a Michael B. band (see attachment). My problem is that my lady loves very thin, delicate-looking bands. I chose this style of ''lace'' pave because I think it makes the ring look more romantic and delicate. Whiteflash can make the band as thin as 2.5mm, but has suggested that I go with 2.8 so that the platinum can be seen on the sides of the pave. Someone please help me to figure out whether I should take Whiteflash''s advice, or go with a thinner, 2.5mm band.

 

[msb2ncsu]

I would feel safe assuming that they are advising you in your own best interest. If it wasn't really a issue then they probably wouldn't even bring it up. 0.3mm seems so insignificant, is it really going to affect the ring's appearance as much as you think it is? I mean thats just barely 1/100th of an inch.

 

[researcher]

Interestingly, when my B/F and I contacted WF about my setting we told them I wanted it to be no bigger than 2.5mm. Initially I was told it wouldn't look right being that thin (they wanted it to taper down to 2.5mm from I think 3.5mm), but when they created the mold for it they said the part of the shank next to the head would only be about 2.8mm and then taper to the 2.5mm. I didn't like that it would start out wider, but I figured they knew what they were doing and was just glad my shank would be thinner. Funny, but once I received my ring (I just got engaged!) I could barely tell the difference in size. Honestly, I don't think you'll be able to tell much of a difference (if any) between 2.5mm and 2.8mm. And, as long as they know what you have in mind they'll do their best to keep it as thin as possible without sacrificing its beauty

 

[Mara]

Hmm I can't offer help on what size to go with but I will offer this.




2.5mm is NOT that thin. My e-ring is 2.8mm and it's noticeably thicker than my 2.3mm wedding ring by WhiteFlash.




Michael B e-rings, like the one you posted are about 2mm wide. Believe it or not, the tiny differences ARE visible. I say this because I don't want you to be disappointed when you get the ring because it will be noticeably thicker.




What melee size did you choose? They can do that type of pave with a. 02c melee stone and make it no wider than 2.3mm which is what they did with mine and mine is prong set, not even pave. I am really surprised that they would say 2.8mm which in my opinion is wide and nowhere near super thin like the MB rings. But if you have large melee like .03c or .04c...then they have to go with more metal.




However, and this is the rub. MB rings are not practical for everyday use as engagement rings. There is not enough metal really to hold in those baby melee stones. This can lead to melee loss later or bending the ring more easily because there is less metal support than with a wider or thicker band. This is particularly the reason why we did not go with an MB style pave ring...but rather got prong set. Also the reason why my ring is wider, more metal. So it's a trade off. Do you want a super thin pave band that may not be as durable later...or want the awesome baby pave look? I LOVE the baby pave look and somewhat wish that I had gone with it anyway...because you can always fix or replace a setting...but 20/20 hindsight. So just be sure you know the pros and cons and act accordingly to your priorities.




My two cents is if you want that super thin MB band look, get the .02c melee and have them make it around 2.3mm. Also I think the MB thin band makes the stones look larger, so the thinner the better since this stone is a 1c and not something like a 4c where you could maybe get away with a 2.8mm band.

 

[bjd006]

Thanks for the great info Mara. I felt like a .3 difference would be noticable as well. Brian and I originally agreed upon 2.5 because he said that he could make it smaller, but he would not warrant anything below a 2.5. That being said, and in consideration of my girlfriend being a bit rough on things, I am going to go with the 2.5.

Thanks again.

 

[valeria101]

It seems that Richard Landi makes one (LINK for pears... maybe worth taking a look