looking for a particular setting - PLEASE HELP!!!!

[civictypesi]

Hi, this is the setting I want: http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Diamond-Settings/-Bead-Set-Cathedral--Engagement-Ring_1198.htm#
(channel setting w/ round diamonds not princess, 6 prongs, white gold, milgrain or no milgrain i don't care) i like the smooth non-jagged look (and can actually run my fingers along something smooth - too jagged = uncomfortable feeling between fingers according to my friend. it is 2.9 mm though!!

I want the exact same setting as above but in half the width (1.5mmish instead of the current 2.9)...like this wide: http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Diamond-Settings/-Petite-Open-Cathedral--Engagement-Ring_1211.htm# (i don't like this one ONLY b/c I don't ike the jagged edge look from the side view - i like the diamonds in the channel to be surrounded by a thin metal band like above) - i'm sure it wouldn't cost me (if any?????) to ask them to make this 6 prongs instead of 4?

anybody seen a 1.5mm engagement ring w/o the jagged look and has the thin metal band surrounding it???? i would prefer it came w/ a matching wedding band so i don't have to go thru additional stress of finding one more ring.

thank you!

EDIT: http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/White-Gold-Engagement-Ring.html I think the metal band surrounding the diamonds in this channel are a bit too thick. and i don't like how the inside of the ring has "holes"

 

[House Cat]

Not sure of the width, but pearlmans has this setting:

Sholdt Setting

ETA: I know it's only a 4 prong, but it's a pretty 4 prong.

 

[swingirl]

Date: 4/24/2009 9:33:08 PM
Author: House Cat
Not sure of the width, but pearlmans has this setting:


Sholdt Setting


ETA: I know it''s only a 4 prong, but it''s a pretty 4 prong.

That one is bead set, not channel set.

 

[House Cat]

Date: 4/24/2009 9:35:14 PM
Author: swingirl

Date: 4/24/2009 9:33:08 PM
Author: House Cat
Not sure of the width, but pearlmans has this setting:


Sholdt Setting


ETA: I know it''s only a 4 prong, but it''s a pretty 4 prong.

That one is bead set, not channel set.

Oops..sorry.

Where''s a blushing smiley when I need one?

 

[civictypesi]

i want one like this (thin band, beautiful channel, 6 prongs, diamonds in channel surrounded by 2 thin bands)! http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-engagement-ring-platinum_7490?parent_oid=7491 BUT

1 - w/o the 2 prong-set diamonds on the side
2 - a head that would accommodate a 1.5ct diamond (the website says it would accomodate round diamonds 0.75ct - 1.15 ct)

keep your suggestions coming please!

 

[civictypesi]

while it doesn''t have to be a matching bridal set, our entire burdget for the e-ring (setting alone) + my w-band is $1895 (essentially no more than the beautiful bead set cathedral from whiteflash)

 

[purrfectpear]

You won't find a channel set ring that thin (1.5mm). It's impossible to set the diamonds in a channel that narrow with any integrity IMO. They'd be so tiny you couldn't even see them (less than .005 point melee is 1.0mm wide) with the channel covering the majority of the stone.

 

[civictypesi]

pardon for my ignorance but what is the difference between bead, channel, and pave set? they both look the same - diamonds are in a channel... i ike the one you picked however it's 4 prongs and the e-ring alone = cost of e-ring + w-band from whiteflash. too expensive

 

[civictypesi]

maybe i meant pave?? sorry for my ignorance - by "channel" setting i was referring to diamonds in row next to the center stone

 

[civictypesi]

http://www.jamesallen.com/wedding-and-anniversary/womens-wedding-rings/ring/item_63-3751.asp

i can tolerate a ring (e-ring, w-band) w/ this kind of side view b/c the top-down view shows a super thin rim of metal surrounding the diamonds.

CON - the giant gaps inbetween the diamonds. anyone seen a ring (e-ring, w-band) like this w/o the huge slabs of metal between the diamonds?

 

[civictypesi]

ok, i want one just like this : http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-engagement-ring-platinum_7812?nav1=engagement_segment.jsp

but can accommodate a 1.5 ct head and in 18K white gold - anybody see this anywhere else?

 

[girlie-girl]

James Allen has a couple, they are however both wider than you said you wanted (2.2mm and 2.6mm respectively).

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/18k-White-Gold-2-2mm-Pave-Set-Diamond-Ring.html

and

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/18k-White-Gold-2-6mm-Six-Prong-Pave-Set-Ring.html

 

[civictypesi]

thanks! can you telll me more about your setting (esp. the width)? it looks beautiful. do you have any more pictures?

 

[civictypesi]

girlie, i like the 2.2 u suggested but the setting seems a little bit strange - w/ how thick the prongs are, doesn''t it seem almost like the center stone is smushed down? the center stone definitely doesn''t pop out like whiteflash

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 4/24/2009 11:55:54 PM
Author: civictypesi
thanks! can you telll me more about your setting (esp. the width)? it looks beautiful. do you have any more pictures?

Were you asking more about my ring? If so, thank you for the compliment. Assuming you were (forgive me if you were speaking to someone else), my ring is a Danhov ME10. I purchased it through James Allen. I don''t know what the dimensions of the bands are as they''re not listed anywhere and I don''t have any way to measure it. It is quite delicate and dainty.

Here''s a link to my ring on JA''s site: http://www.jamesallen.com/designer-jewelry/meno-collection-by-danhov/ring/item_294-1136.asp

I have a 1ct radiant and my finger size is 5.25. Here are a couple pics, you can see some more here.

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 4/25/2009 12:09:34 AM
Author: civictypesi
girlie, i like the 2.2 u suggested but the setting seems a little bit strange - w/ how thick the prongs are, doesn't it seem almost like the center stone is smushed down? the center stone definitely doesn't pop out like whiteflash

Yes, the JA setting has a different style head and the center stone is set a tad lower. This may be something JA could adjust for you, might be worth a call asking. I personally like low profiles, so I would prefer the JA setting over the WF. Some people really love cathedral settings, it really comes down to personal preference.

Either way, both rings are going to be very pretty. I honestly don't think you could go wrong with either.

 

[civictypesi]

girlie girl, yep, was asking ab your ring - thank yoU! how long are your fingers? to be quite honest from the ja website i would''ve classified the ring head as being too low but looking at your finished product you can''t tell. any side shots? do you know the dimensions of your diamond just so i have a better idea of how everything fits together. not to worry, i stsill have my heart set on round diamonds

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 4/25/2009 12:21:30 PM
Author: civictypesi
girlie girl, yep, was asking ab your ring - thank yoU! how long are your fingers? to be quite honest from the ja website i would''ve classified the ring head as being too low but looking at your finished product you can''t tell. any side shots? do you know the dimensions of your diamond just so i have a better idea of how everything fits together. not to worry, i stsill have my heart set on round diamonds

Sure, I''m happy to share the details of my radiant.

GIA 1.01ct E VS1
6.51 x 5.38 x 3.41
Polish/Symmetry - VG/VG
Fluorescence - Medium blue
Table - 68%
Depth - 63.4%
Girdle - Very thick
Cutlet - None

I think my fingers are fairly long, but I don''t seem to have any full hand shots.

A rough measurement with a tape measure puts my ring finger to be about three inches long.

Here are a couple off the finger pics:

 

[Lorelei]

Thats a PERFECT ring GG!!!