Let's talk size...

[TC1987]

from solitaire to halo before /after thread [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]

 

[braga123]

Diamondseeker and Charmy: I am with you guys on the halo thing....I already have a rhr so I am trying to resist the urge

Daisy: I think that I have concluded that there might be more important factors than size when it comes to the setting. IOW, I am going to stop obsessing over which setting makes my stone look larger and appreciate the setting for its beauty and for how it enhances my stone overall.

Logan: I think it would add at the very least a 1.5 mm.

Junebug: Part of the reason it is hard to decide is that I was torn between my current setting and one similar to yours! But, having done the halo thing before (although very different type) and having plans for my rhr, I decided against the halo, but sometimes I still wonder...

 

[braga123]

Here is a picture of all 3 different settings. Feel free to tell me if my current setting is swallowing my diamond to the point where it doesn't look like a 2.24 carat. Size 5.5 finger.
current setting:


bezel-like setting:


solitaire:

 

[Acinom]

In all 3 settings your diamond looks amazing!! In the solitaire setting it looks like a 2.5 ct stone. In the bezel and your current setting it looks much bigger then a 2.5 stone!!

Your current setting is amazing! I hope you get used to it soon. To my eyes, the center stone gets all the attention.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

They are all nice, truly, but for some reason your 2nd, then, 3rd setting speak to me more. Your stone is a good size and could handle virtually anything.

 

[braga123]

They are all nice, truly, but for some reason your 2nd, then, 3rd setting speak to me more. Your stone is a good size and could handle virtually anything.

I really love your setting! I have also been considering a bezel, but I don't know if it will darken my stone, since my diamond is not ideal cut. I think it also helps tremendously to be blessed with your small fingers. As for mine, I felt that the 2nd setting sat too low and there wasn't enough "shining from across the room" factor. My 3rd setting, the solitaire, seemed to shrink my stone. It was almost like since it was sitting tall and alone, it didn't have too much presence, and no matter how much I added stackers, it just seemed to be lacking girth. So I went in the opposite direction and here I am now, wondering if I shrank my stone.

 

[Laila619]

I think it looked the biggest in the 2nd one!

 

[SB621]

I thought this was an interesting picture and goes along with the topic.

From Left to Right
5.06ct N/O GIA antique cushion in halo
2.08 O/P EGL (i'm guessing Q/R GIA) in a 3 stone setting set very low (8mm)
1.18ct J GIA in solitare set high (7.6mm)

To me the 2ct that is set low and the 1ct that is set high look to be the same size.

 

[msop04]

I really love the "bezel-like" setting (second one) -- it makes the diamond look MUCH larger than the other two. If I had to rank them, it would be "bezel-like" > 4-prong thing (3rd) > larger band (1st).

I have a friend that has almost the exact same size stone as mine (hers is actually larger -- 8.7 vs 8.9). Mine is haloed (avatar) and hers is in a beautiful classic 4-prong solitaire and set pretty high. My stone still looks larger, even when held side by side. I do think that if she had a 6-prong, it would make hers look a little larger than it does in the 4-prong. I think a halo with the right proportions will make a diamond appear larger, not just "haloed."

 

[Mayk]

I've been following this thread but haven't posted. I did vote... I said G it is what it is. As someone who went from a 1.3 MRB with a cushion halo to a 2.0 MRB I always felt like with my halo I was trying to make my diamnd something it wasn't...bigger. I loved my halo but found I stressed about the setting being dirty or losing or damaging diamonds. I had cracked one diamond. By going to a solitaire I'm happier. (I know this is totally a personal thing). I feel the diamond stands alone nicely. I will say I don't get nearly the number of compliments on this ring versus my halo... So interesting question, a lot of interesting feedback and I agree with those that picked A. I just personally felt it was G after my change.

As for your settings they are all stunning... But #2 is my favorite. But consider the source.

 

[LLJsmom]

Braga, I know exactly how you feel about the setting. To me your center stone does stand out a lot with your new setting. I don't prefer #2 b/c I don't love the metal around your stone. I don't prefer #3 b/c it looks too common, meaning that #1 is prettier IMHO. Although #3 does let your stone really shine.

Hope this is not a threadjack. If so, I can start a new thread.

I am struggling with the same thing. I have a 2.59 F, VS1, 3X stone, 4.5 size finger (8.75mm-ish). You would think it would look big enough, but many times, it doesn't. I wonder how much it has to do with the setting. I feel like that size of a stone should be big enough and it's the setting holding it back, or not showing it off to it's greatest advantage.

I have large side stones (30 points) compared to the 1-2 point melees that are used on a lot of skinny shank solitaire settings these days. I have always loved the look of this setting, and loved the finger coverage. It looks a lot better to me than my first plain shank setting, which was too low in my opinion. I kept thinking the stone looked small in the original setting.

Before:


After: Much higher. I purposely wanted that old school peghead mount. Don't ask me why. And it did look much bigger to me b/c it was set a lot higher. In a pic, it kinda looks smaller, but IRL it's much more prominent to my eye.




But after wearing it for a while, I feel like I am losing sight of my center stone, largely b/c the side stones are so substantial, I think. I love seeing the outline of my stone. So maybe that is why I think the stone is shrinking. Maybe a bezel halo setting would set it off. I love the oecs set in bezel. Also it would protect the center stone better b/c I do tend to bang it a lot with a high setting. I'm getting better at being careful, but it's still kind of a pain to always be watching out for it.

The problem is that I have not seen ONE halo in real life that I like. (center being a diamond) With the ones I've seen, I feel like it makes the center diamond blur into the halo stones, which I don't prefer. I want to see the center clearly defined. BUT, I also have not seen a Victor Canera halo in real life either, so that may sway me if I did. Maybe it just has to be the perfect halo. And there are so many that I see on PS that I do like. I love singlestone bezel settings. They are so delicate but also really allow the center to shine.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-single-stone-94-oec-bezel-halo-e-ring.171602/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-single-stone-94-oec-bezel-halo-e-ring.171602/[/URL]

I would love for a solitaire to be enough, but that might mean I have to move up in size, which would be a big investment. I think I would need to jump at least to a 3.5 to see a big difference, and I'm thinking that the cost of doing that would be prohibitive due to the specs I would want. Thoughts??

 

[LLJsmom]

I thought this was an interesting picture and goes along with the topic.

From Left to Right
5.06ct N/O GIA antique cushion in halo
2.08 O/P EGL (i'm guessing Q/R GIA) in a 3 stone setting set very low (8mm)
1.18ct J GIA in solitare set high (7.6mm)

To me the 2ct that is set low and the 1ct that is set high look to be the same size.

SB621, I can definitely see the size difference between the 1 and 2 carat, but it's not a huge difference. I am sure the height of the setting does have something to do with it. And you 5? Just gorgeous and tdf... i'd be ok with that...

 

[braga123]

LLJsmom,
I have to agree that your first setting did make your stone pop more; and like many of the opinions I have gotten, it is probably not what you want to hear. I wanted to hear that setting did not affect the perceived size of a diamond. I wanted to hear that PSers knew better than to fall for optical illusions bc that would mean that my current setting is not detracting from my stone, that it is all in my head.
On the other hand, hearing that the setting affects perceived size, I have to wonder if I care more about size than the other qualities that drew me to my current setting, which is kind of what I hear from you. I think your setting is gorgeous and classic and probably sparkles and shines from a distance just as well as the halo does. Most PSers voted that the halo makes the diamond seem bigger, but I think that most mean that the halo provides more overall coverage and bling (I think that you alluded to this too). So, perhaps the question I should have asked was, which setting makes the diamond pop more and thus, appear larger?
I still don't know what I value more: having my stone look bigger or the other aspects that drew me to my setting.

 

[backwardsandinheels]

Ditto Laila. My stone garnered GIA Very Good, so not ideal yet it still looks very nice. How about if you go to a store and rest a store diamond comparable to yours in a few settings? Like you've never looked at settings before...I think your first setting looks kind of all locked up and buttoned down with no curves. I prefer a mix of curvy and symmetry if you know what I mean. Post some pics of your "thinking about it settings" if you have any. Victor Canera really seems to be the master of prong set can't miss halos.

 

[junebug17]

I think it looks the biggest in the second setting, but that said it doesn't look small in the others, it's a good sized stone no matter what setting it's in.