Looking for Opinion on Side Stones

[ML2014]

Hi everyone- you have all been so helpful to me, I thought I''d throw another question your way.

I am working on a 3-stone ring project. I found the center stone- its a 1.51 rb (H, eye clean SI)

I''ve read through all the threads here about size proportions for 3 stone rings, and have been working with my jeweler to find matching side stones. While she has found a pair of .44 ct (each) stones that match beautifully, I am nervous that they may be too small.

For some reason, I am having a hard time visuallizing what the proportion will look like in the finished ring. I am married and plan to wear this as an anniversary band, so I don''t want it to look like an engagement ring (where in my mind, the side stones are much smaller). I want the stones to cover the front of my finger.

My ring size is a size 4.

Can any of you offer an opinion on the size I am looking at? Would you go bigger (I think the most I would go is .50 on each side)? Does any one have a picture with a ring with these proportions that I could look at? Any help would be appreciated!

 

[kcoursolle]

.44 would probably look very nice. Do you want a large blingy looking three-stone or do you want the center stone to be the focus of the ring. I tend to like the center focus of the ring and smaller sidestones.

There won''t be a huge difference between the look of .44 and .50.

 

[ML2014]

Thanks kcoursolle...

I don''t want a large blingy ring, but I want a ring with presence. I am tall (5''10")so I can carry it, and it will be just about the only ring I will wear (I don''t wear bracelets really either).

I do like the look where the center stone kind of pops out at you, but again, I want a ring that covers the width of my finger. I also don''t want the sidestones to be too small, because they represent my twins, while the center stone is my older child.

When I went to the jeweler, she showed me .50 stones and they seemed much biggger that the .44 stones. Maybe it was my mind playing tricks on me. Is it true that stones will look larger when they are set? I am going for a classic bascket setting- will this make a difference? Bottom line, if I go for larger side stones, I''ll have to go for a smaller center stone (budget wise).

I know its a silly problem to have...but I do want to make the best choice. There will be no upgrade (although I''ve learned to never say never).

 

[kcoursolle]

I would focus more of your budget on the center stone rather than the sides. If you ever decide to reset, you''ll be happy you have the larger center stone. Also, with a size 4 finger you are going to get a ton of finger coverage!!! No need to buy more finger real estate LOL!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/6/2007 1:28:56 PM
Author: Kajamie
Thanks kcoursolle...

I don''t want a large blingy ring, but I want a ring with presence. I am tall (5''10'')so I can carry it, and it will be just about the only ring I will wear (I don''t wear bracelets really either).

I do like the look where the center stone kind of pops out at you, but again, I want a ring that covers the width of my finger. I also don''t want the sidestones to be too small, because they represent my twins, while the center stone is my older child.

When I went to the jeweler, she showed me .50 stones and they seemed much biggger that the .44 stones. Maybe it was my mind playing tricks on me. Is it true that stones will look larger when they are set? I am going for a classic bascket setting- will this make a difference? Bottom line, if I go for larger side stones, I''ll have to go for a smaller center stone (budget wise).

I know its a silly problem to have...but I do want to make the best choice. There will be no upgrade (although I''ve learned to never say never).

I can believe you saw a difference, it''s more noticable in the smaller stones. Since you have the benefit of seeing them, go with the size your eyes like.

And with a size 4 finger, I think this will cover VERY nicely!

 

[ML2014]

Thank you both for your feedback!

I think that while I like the look of the bigger stones better, it isn''t enough to justify spending any more than I already plan to.

I''m going to visit the jeweler tomorrow and ask her if she can show me the stones in the setting that she would use. Hopefully that will help me.

I like the idea that I should invest more in the center stone. I love the one I picked out, and at the end of the day, if I do upgrade, it will be so much easier if only the side stones are involved. I just wish I could see it- but if my jeweler can help me visualize it by showing me the diamonds in the setting- perhaps I''ll have my answer.

Thanks again!

 

[Ellen]

I think that''s a good idea to see them in a setting. Let us know what you decide!

 

[rocks]

i can respond to the ''coverage" question. i am a 4 1/8. my ring is a 1.75 with .45each sidestones, and i have almost complete coverage.

enjoy

 

[ML2014]

Just a quick "Thank You" to everone that replied!

I went to the jeweler today and she put the pair of .44 stones and the 1.51 stone in the setting. It was absolutely beautiful. It''s the ring of my dreams- simple, classic and big enough to give me the coverage that I am looking for.

So...I ordered it! I should have it in a week, and I''ll be sure to post a picture. Yeah!

Thank you again for all of your help!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/7/2007 1:54:52 PM
Author: Kajamie
Just a quick ''Thank You'' to everone that replied!

I went to the jeweler today and she put the pair of .44 stones and the 1.51 stone in the setting. It was absolutely beautiful. It''s the ring of my dreams- simple, classic and big enough to give me the coverage that I am looking for.

So...I ordered it! I should have it in a week, and I''ll be sure to post a picture. Yeah!

Thank you again for all of your help!

Cant wait to see it!!

 

[kcoursolle]

Yay, I really do hope you come back with pictures!!! It sounds like a lovely ring!