Let's talk size...

[braga123]

I notice that a lot of PSers come here for ideas on how to make their diamond look bigger (including myself). Many inquire about halo settings, 3 stones, bezels, a thinner ring, etc. So, as a PSer, what do you honestly think? Does the setting affect how big the diamond looks?
From experience, having owned SEVERAL settings, I have to say that I am still confused and would love to know if PSers are swayed by settings.

 

[chrono]

I think it also depends on the size of the stone itself. Some diamonds end up looking even smaller in a halo setting because the halo dwarfs the center stone. It is all about proportions. I find that with the right setting, the stone will look fabulous, regardless of size. I own diamonds of different sizes, set in different setting styles and love them for different reasons.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If the objective is to maximize the size appearance of the center stone, then halo is the answer! Obviously we'd all like some kinds better than others depending on personal preference.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/solitaire-to-halo-before-and-afters.130309/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/solitaire-to-halo-before-and-afters.130309/[/URL]

 

[Acinom]

Probably a halo if it's subtle enough, followed by a relatively high setting in a no fuss solitaire.

 

[heididdl]

DS totally agree here is an exapmple of a setting that dwarfs tthe stone

 

[braga123]

Wow...seems the answer should have been obvious...a halo....any dissenters out there? Would like to hear from you....

 

[GreenBling]

IMHO, halos do give a bigger total look and if done right can enhance the beauty of the stone. However i do not feel that a halo would make the center stone appear bigger than it is. in my own experience, thin band, 6 prongs, high setting can.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

When you look at an engagement ring from a distance, a stone with halo is going to look like a larger diamond ring. I have always had a solitaire for my e-ring, but I do have a couple of halo right hand rings. They definitely increase the perception of size. The thread I linked earlier really shows it. My diamond right hand ring only has a 1 carat asscher, but with the halo, it compares nicely to my 2.3 ct solitaire. That works well since I really can't have multiple 2 ct diamonds! I will say that a delicate halo such as the Victor Canera Emilya is one of the best at blending in with the stone and making it look like a larger diamond.

 

[Gypsy]

Halos can make the center itself look bigger. It's an optical illusion, and it depends on the halo but it does happen.

 

[Daisyoz]

It is very interesting that this topic came up. For a few weeks now I have been having the impression that my FI's SIL's diamond (let s call her T) looks bigger than mine. I know that by pure size and weight, it is not. Hers is 1.38 carat D and mine is 1.5 G, her ring size 4 and mine 3.75. Both are of excellent cut, hers is BN Signature Ideal, mine is an ACA. The big difference is in the settings. T's setting is s six prong trio pave. The mounting is high and the two small side stones flanking the diamond give additional finger coverage (though definitely not a 3 stone setting). The shanks and prongs are also of significant size. I have never looked at it closesly but from a 1-2mm distance the ring looks very big and has a good presence on her hand. The diamond in particualr looks huge and my impression is that it looks much bigger than mine does. My setting is the Vatche Felicity with very delicate prongs and thin shanks, the diamond also set very low, about 5.5mm.

What are the optical illusions at play here? Does D colour diamond look bigger than G colour because it is whiter (T's diamond looks very white and stark although it is definitely not sparkling more than mine and there is a definite lack of fire under spot lighting)? Do thicker prongs accentuate the diamond diameter? High mounting? The distance from which the ring and diamond are seen (when i hold my ring close to my eyes, the diamond looks smaller than when I hold it at an arm's length so may be her diamond looks bigger to me because it is even further away from my eyes?) The two small diamonds on the side? I feel like somehow my setting downplays my diamond and T's setting really plays hers up (unless it is the D colour that makes it that way?)

 

[Laila619]

Probably a halo if it's subtle enough, followed by a relatively high setting in a no fuss solitaire.

Exactly this.

And I too have had lots of settings--I've noticed that the really dainty settings do NOT work to make my diamond look bigger, at least not for me. I think a more substantial shank makes the stone and the overall ring look bigger too. It has more presence.

 

[braga123]

It is very interesting that this topic came up. For a few weeks now I have been having the impression that my FI's SIL's diamond (let s call her T) looks bigger than mine. I know that by pure size and weight, it is not. Hers is 1.38 carat D and mine is 1.5 G, her ring size 4 and mine 3.75. Both are of excellent cut, hers is BN Signature Ideal, mine is an ACA. The big difference is in the settings. T's setting is s six prong trio pave. The mounting is high and the two small side stones flanking the diamond give additional finger coverage (though definitely not a 3 stone setting). The shanks and prongs are also of significant size. I have never looked at it closesly but from a 1-2mm distance the ring looks very big and has a good presence on her hand. The diamond in particualr looks huge and my impression is that it looks much bigger than mine does. My setting is the Vatche Felicity with very delicate prongs and thin shanks, the diamond also set very low, about 5.5mm.

What are the optical illusions at play here? Does D colour diamond look bigger than G colour because it is whiter (T's diamond looks very white and stark although it is definitely not sparkling more than mine and there is a definite lack of fire under spot lighting)? Do thicker prongs accentuate the diamond diameter? High mounting? The distance from which the ring and diamond are seen (when i hold my ring close to my eyes, the diamond looks smaller than when I hold it at an arm's length so may be her diamond looks bigger to me because it is even further away from my eyes?) The two small diamonds on the side? I feel like somehow my setting downplays my diamond and T's setting really plays hers up (unless it is the D colour that makes it that way?)

I just saw your ring..and I can't imagine how it looks smaller than a 1.3! Your story almost leads me to believe that this size thing is definitely all in our heads! I am willing to bet that she thinks the same thing about yours. A lot of people suggest that looking at your ring in the mirror makes it seems bigger--maybe that is where the optical illusion lies. But what do I know...I am the one who is still confused. It would be easy to accept the halo as the solution, but to me, it just seems that the hello enhances, but does not fool anyone into seeing a bigger diamond.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It is very interesting that this topic came up. For a few weeks now I have been having the impression that my FI's SIL's diamond (let s call her T) looks bigger than mine. I know that by pure size and weight, it is not. Hers is 1.38 carat D and mine is 1.5 G, her ring size 4 and mine 3.75. Both are of excellent cut, hers is BN Signature Ideal, mine is an ACA. The big difference is in the settings. T's setting is s six prong trio pave. The mounting is high and the two small side stones flanking the diamond give additional finger coverage (though definitely not a 3 stone setting). The shanks and prongs are also of significant size. I have never looked at it closesly but from a 1-2mm distance the ring looks very big and has a good presence on her hand. The diamond in particualr looks huge and my impression is that it looks much bigger than mine does. My setting is the Vatche Felicity with very delicate prongs and thin shanks, the diamond also set very low, about 5.5mm.

What are the optical illusions at play here? Does D colour diamond look bigger than G colour because it is whiter (T's diamond looks very white and stark although it is definitely not sparkling more than mine and there is a definite lack of fire under spot lighting)? Do thicker prongs accentuate the diamond diameter? High mounting? The distance from which the ring and diamond are seen (when i hold my ring close to my eyes, the diamond looks smaller than when I hold it at an arm's length so may be her diamond looks bigger to me because it is even further away from my eyes?) The two small diamonds on the side? I feel like somehow my setting downplays my diamond and T's setting really plays hers up (unless it is the D colour that makes it that way?)

A few possibilities:

1) Yes, a higher setting will make a stone look larger. It is closer to the eyes.

2) Yes, I think a whiter diamond that is well cut will seem brighter and could appear slightly larger.

3) Her diamond may be close in diameter to yours if hers has a 60 depth and yours has 62, for example.

My first diamond bought after joining PS was set very low by Leon Mege. I doubt yours is set that low. But the proportions did not seem right to me. I eventually got a Vatche U-113 which is a medium height setting, and that was much better. I wouldn't choose a high setting because it is too easy to bang the ring against things. But medium height seems to be the best balance for me.

 

[motownmama]

HOw 'bout a vote for bezel? I don't know how to word it properly and don't want to be dismissive of halos (which I love, but only in certain circumstances), but just the shiny metal and the stone - that gives it a bump.

 

[Acinom]

Finger size is also an important factor, in terms of finger size/diamond size ratio

For me a solitaire sometimes looks bigger then a haloed version in the same size, especially if the melee is rather large. I agree with DS that desingers like VC and SK can de miracles in making 'hardly there' halo's that make a diamond pop

 

[TC1987]

Wow...seems the answer should have been obvious...a halo....any dissenters out there? Would like to hear from you....

Dissenter, here! LOL

I voted for bezel. My other choice would have been illusion head or illusion plate, but those weren't offered. I think the bezel and illusion plate, since they are usually white metal, enlarge the apparent diameter of a diamond without looking cluttered or distracting like some halos. Thus, they make the actual diamond look bigger. But I like halos, too, if they are the "traditional" Art Deco with some sizable stones. Like Reena's ring, and Daniel K Empress, some of the other 2004-2005 or 2006 halos, or the VC Emilya. I don't like the thin "lacy" ones that most people seem to favor nowadays.

Daniel K Empress halo formerly owned by mrssalvo
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/good-things-come-to-those-who-wait-my-daniel-k-is-here.86927/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/good-things-come-to-those-who-wait-my-daniel-k-is-here.86927/[/URL]

Bezel + halo though the diamond is actually prong set
http://www.pricescope.com/wiki/engagement-rings/halo-rings

 

[braga123]

But since most people recognize that halo's are size boosters, don't they subconsciously underestimate the center diamond? I mean, if I know that I am wearing a halo (having owned one) and know that it looks huge because of the setting, when I see other halo's, I always assume that the center stone is not a very massive size. Anyone else agree?

 

[Laila619]

But since most people recognize that halo's are size boosters, don't they subconsciously underestimate the center diamond? I mean, if I know that I am wearing a halo (having owned one) and know that it looks huge because of the setting, when I see other halo's, I always assume that the center stone is not a very massive size. Anyone else agree?

Nah. When I see someone's ring, it's usually not up close. Like I'll see a woman walking by in Target, and I just see a huge wall of sparkle that catches my eye. I can't tell it's a halo per se, so I just assume her diamond is big.

And people halo everything from a 0.30 to a 10 carat, so even that doesn't really tell you much about the size of someone's center.

 

[m-2-b]

Delicate halo w/ a thin band is my recommendation! Or, keep upgrading until you get to the size you want!

 

[braga123]

I actually upgraded to a 2.24 and with this diamond I am on my third setting but have resisted the halo BC I always thought a 2 carat would be substantial enough for any setting....but my current setting seems to swallow my stone or at least that is how I feel when I am not busy loving it. The thin band solitaire didn't do much for me...maybe I overestimated the size of a 2.24 .

 

[GreenBling]

I actually upgraded to a 2.24 and with this diamond I am on my third setting but have resisted the halo BC I always thought a 2 carat would be substantial enough for any setting....but my current setting seems to swallow my stone or at least that is how I feel when I am not busy loving it. The thin band solitaire didn't do much for me...maybe I overestimated the size of a 2.24 .

my 2.36 was reset from 6 thick prongs to current thinner double 4 prongs. The former setting made the diamond looked very very very substantial, so much so that i felt uneasy wearing. no side by side comparison but it felt as if it was 2 mm bigger.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I actually upgraded to a 2.24 and with this diamond I am on my third setting but have resisted the halo BC I always thought a 2 carat would be substantial enough for any setting....but my current setting seems to swallow my stone or at least that is how I feel when I am not busy loving it. The thin band solitaire didn't do much for me...maybe I overestimated the size of a 2.24 .

I also upgraded to a 2.29 earlier this year, and in the past, I thought anything over 2 cts was just huge! But an odd thing happened. As more and more PSer's upgraded to 3 ct stones, I got used to seeing larger stones and now mine doesn't look large to me! I really don't want a halo on my e-ring, though, because I have a couple of RHR's with halo's and I just don't want to overdo the halos! So let me know if you figure it out! I think your ring is gorgeous, though! The stones on your shank add some bling and I think that helps more than a plain solitaire like mine.

 

[Daisyoz]

A few possibilities:

1) Yes, a higher setting will make a stone look larger. It is closer to the eyes.

2) Yes, I think a whiter diamond that is well cut will seem brighter and could appear slightly larger.

3) Her diamond may be close in diameter to yours if hers has a 60 depth and yours has 62, for example.

My first diamond bought after joining PS was set very low by Leon Mege. I doubt yours is set that low. But the proportions did not seem right to me. I eventually got a Vatche U-113 which is a medium height setting, and that was much better. I wouldn't choose a high setting because it is too easy to bang the ring against things. But medium height seems to be the best balance for me.

Hi Diamondseeker , Merry Christmas!

I agree with you. When i first saw T's diamond I thought it was 1.5 carat. Then when my SO started researching for my ring, he asked his brother for his experience and the brother forwarded a file containing all the details of the ring so that's how I know it's 1.38 carat (when i asked earlier it was 1.5 she said yes ). However at 1.38 carat, her diamond still has a diameter of around 7-7.1mm so that s very close to mine of 7.37mm. I didnt expect it to look smaller, I just didnt expect it to look so huge and bigger than mine.

There is literally about 1mm of clearance from the culet of my diamond to the base of the ring (base of the donut) and my diamond height is about 4.8mm. Some setting i see the clearance is almost 70% of the diamond's height. What would you consider a medium height DS? I am researching in case I decide to change setting in the future.

When I chose the setting, besides the reason SO loves a solitaire and the Vatche Felicity, I deliberately chose low setting and thin clean shank because of my job in the health sector. I wear gloves every day and need to work with my hands and i got to say the Felicity is perfect for that, it s very light, thin, i could turn the diamond around into my palm and fit a glove other that and can still work comfortably. I thought settings like T's make the diamond look too big. But since i got the ACA, I suddenly have the urge to show its beauty off in a best possible position and have a very vain urge to change to a high mount pave setting .

 

[Daisyoz]

I just saw your ring..and I can't imagine how it looks smaller than a 1.3! Your story almost leads me to believe that this size thing is definitely all in our heads! I am willing to bet that she thinks the same thing about yours. A lot of people suggest that looking at your ring in the mirror makes it seems bigger--maybe that is where the optical illusion lies. But what do I know...I am the one who is still confused. It would be easy to accept the halo as the solution, but to me, it just seems that the hello enhances, but does not fool anyone into seeing a bigger diamond.

Merry Christmas Braga !

Yes, I think it is mostly in my head. However, that observation about looking atour ring in the mirror makes it seems bigger strengthen my belief that other people see our diamonds bigger than we look at ours due to the distance. Therefore our obsession that our diamonds are smaller than the girl next door's. Depending on the angles I look at my diamond, sometime it looks as big as what I see T's diamond looks. So I think perhaps the trick is to find a setting that will display the diamond at those angles most of the times. So far, this is what I find making the diamond look bigger:
1. Thick 6 prongs (though of course within esthetic limit, not sure if claw prongs are the best to enhance the perimeter of the main diamond)
2. High mounting
3. Side stones (not necessary in a 3 stone setting, i haven't figured out the correct ratio yet),
4. Substantial shank (though of course not too thick as to swallow the diamond (again need to figure out ratio of thickness of shank vs stone's diameter).

Let me know once you have it figured out

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Here you go, 2.24 bezel for a 3.5 ring size. I luurrve it. It does make the center the star of the show.

 

[junebug17]

This is an interesting and fun discussion Braga, I hope more people chime in! I hesitated to reply at first, since I have limited personal experience with different kinds of settings - but I've looked at tons of ring pics during my 4 years on PS! I think that a halo is the most effective way to make a diamond look bigger. I think the before and after thread really illustrates this. Once I reset from a low antique solitaire into a halo, I felt my diamond was transformed - it looks bigger, it sparkles more and just has more life. I think a halo setting improved my old cut's optics, and the increased finger coverage also just adds to the illusion of "bigness". All I can say is a halo completely cured my DSS and helped me to be happier with my diamond.

Just from looking at many, many pics here on PS, I think a bezel and also a somewhat high setting can give a stone a boost.

 

[junebug17]

I actually upgraded to a 2.24 and with this diamond I am on my third setting but have resisted the halo BC I always thought a 2 carat would be substantial enough for any setting....but my current setting seems to swallow my stone or at least that is how I feel when I am not busy loving it. The thin band solitaire didn't do much for me…maybe I overestimated the size of a 2.24 .

I know what you mean - I went from a 6.5 mm to an 8mm and I thought the difference was going to be huge, and it wasn't. I never had that "omg, this is so big I'm not sure I can wear it" feeling lol! I was a little disappointed by that, even though I loved the setting and the diamond. Seeing all the big rocks here on PS didn't help! For a while I thought about upgrading, and my husband, bless his heart, was ok with it…but I just couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money.

I'm sorry to hear you're not 100% satisfied with your setting - But FWIW I think your diamond looks very substantial and big on your hand, and the setting is absolutely gorgeous and has great hand presence!

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I know it depends on the size of the melee used, but generally how many extra mm's would a delicate halo like an Emilya add on? I have a 6.8mm stone that's currently in a 3 stone, but I'm considering haloing it as I'm in the middle of a 5 stone RHR project that might look too similar to my ering setting. I'm just worried a halo will give less coverage than I'm used to, though I know the three stone is horizontal coverage whereas the halo would be more vertical.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I also upgraded to a 2.29 earlier this year, and in the past, I thought anything over 2 cts was just huge! But an odd thing happened. As more and more PSer's upgraded to 3 ct stones, I got used to seeing larger stones and now mine doesn't look large to me! I really don't want a halo on my e-ring, though, because I have a couple of RHR's with halo's and I just don't want to overdo the halos! So let me know if you figure it out! I think your ring is gorgeous, though! The stones on your shank add some bling and I think that helps more than a plain solitaire like mine.

You sound just like me! I am pretty sure my diamond looks "huge" on my finger but it doesn't look that big to me as I would have expected it. No halos for me as well for an e-ring.

I believe in real life - people just don't think too much about this which is why the halo is an easy answer to make it look bigger. Even if the halo is chunky and doubles the overall width of the diamond, people still think the center stone is bigger because of overall finger presence.

 

[dk168]

Can't comment except to say I do not like any settings with claws ever since I lost the centre stone of one of my mum's rings over 20 years ago, therefore, it has to be bezel for me, regardless whether it makes the stone bigger or smaller.

DK