Make it look BIG!!

[A Day Late]

Good day everyone. I have finally choosen my diamond for my e-ring. It is a 1.09 ct excellent cut round brilliant with a GIA cert. I do not at this time have all of the stats for it (forgot them in my office).

BUT, now I need a setting for it. I found the stone at a little family shop in my own province (which is a miracle in itself), and I prefer to buy the setting at the same place. They have a huge selection to choose from, and he will give me a great deal on it. I should be set up with the stone and setting for about $7000 (yes, we moved the budget up again). ANyhow, now I want this gorgeous diamond to stand out in a crowd... so what typw of setting would make the damond look bigger? I definately do not want a three stone ring or a solitaire.

Should I go with small sidestones (3 on each side going down the band, or a halo, or have the diamond ''stand up'' from the setting?

Help make my diamond look bigger.

a day late??

 

[MP]

There are two definite ways to make the diamond look bigger. Either a halo or a very thin band. I would go with something like the Ritani endless love. If you want the stone to appear bigger go with a 1.7 to 2mm band.

 

[A Day Late]

by the way, I wear s ize 6.25 ring... if that matters??

 

[Ellen]

Smaller stones on the sides won''t make it look bigger imo, just blingier. I think a halo would make it look bigger/stand out more, and a thin band would help also.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I think a halo would be your best bet...it will probably make your 1.09ct look closer to a 1.5. I would also select a thinner band to finish the look off. But "how big" do you want it to look? Its all about being realistic and liking the setting you choose above and beyond all else.

 

[A Day Late]

I am a ''blingy'' type of person. I wear alot of large silver jewellery, and love having a ring on every finger.... My honey bunch makes very good money, but has a wishlist of his own this year (wants a huge garage for the toys int he back yard, with a ''man''s room upstairs for his pool table, etc.).. so, I do not want to take his dreams away from him jsut to get engaged - we have been together for eight years, and whether I have a ring or not is no biggie - however, my girlfriends are very shocked that he is even considering engagement (he''s just not the type to ''show'' he loves me with gifts and baubbles... you know what I mean). I wnat him to feel proud of what I picked out. This is his thing alos, he must love the ring, and smile huge whenever I show it off. Because I wear a 6.25 sing size, I felt that a 1 ct was as small a diamond I could get away with - you know, so it doesn''t look teensy.

But, now that I found the stone, I am worrying that the setting will make the stone look smaller than it actually is? Does this make sense? I want people to know it is a 1 ct, and not have the setting ''overtake'' the stone. I have been looking at "show me the ring", and I found that some 1ct stones look very large with the setting, however, some look very small. Same thing with 2ct, 3ct, etc. I want to be in the group of large 1cts.

Hope I am making sense here,

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 2/27/2008 10:56:32 AM
Author: A Day Late
I am a ''blingy'' type of person. I wear alot of large silver jewellery, and love having a ring on every finger.... My honey bunch makes very good money, but has a wishlist of his own this year (wants a huge garage for the toys int he back yard, with a ''man''s room upstairs for his pool table, etc.).. so, I do not want to take his dreams away from him jsut to get engaged - we have been together for eight years, and whether I have a ring or not is no biggie - however, my girlfriends are very shocked that he is even considering engagement (he''s just not the type to ''show'' he loves me with gifts and baubbles... you know what I mean). I wnat him to feel proud of what I picked out. This is his thing alos, he must love the ring, and smile huge whenever I show it off. Because I wear a 6.25 sing size, I felt that a 1 ct was as small a diamond I could get away with - you know, so it doesn''t look teensy.

But, now that I found the stone, I am worrying that the setting will make the stone look smaller than it actually is? Does this make sense? I want people to know it is a 1 ct, and not have the setting ''overtake'' the stone. I have been looking at ''show me the ring'', and I found that some 1ct stones look very large with the setting, however, some look very small. Same thing with 2ct, 3ct, etc. I want to be in the group of large 1cts.

Hope I am making sense here,

Then add sidestones. But if you want the 1 carat to look larger, add a very small halo and go with a thin band.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Ummmm... guess the question is, what is your budget for the setting...knowing that, it''ll be easier for us to suggest what settings are doable and which are a dream.

Also, I have a question.... You said your friends are shocked that he is even considering getting engaged....so, are you making this ring "just in case" or are you getting engaged soon?

 

[allycat0303]

Halo. I have one, and people routinely think it is a big stone.

 

[A Day Late]

We have both been married before, and there is absolutely no way either of us will marry again - even each other.. However, we are deeply in love, and he is definately my soul mate. After eight years, we know we will be together forever, only wil not have the same last names.

I know this sounds silly, or crazy, maybe even insane. But, he was very burnt with his last wife (she was not very nice), and the marrrigae did not last even 90 days before she found another man. So, I don''t want to scare him off by expecting to get married. I will be happy with him without his name.

That being said, we are getting engaged with the understanding that this will be a forever engagement.... Like I said, my firends are surprised that he is considering buying me a ring - every one knows how his first relationship went. He was married for 90 days back in 1985, and was a bachelor until I caught his eye

eight years ago. So, for the last eight years, this has been a bit of a ''trial relationship'', I guess I passed the test, as he fianlly told me in November that he would like to be engaged. Like I said however, I do not plan on him actually taking the chance on being married again.

Our budget is $7000 (today

), and the with the stone I picked out, I could get a setting for about $1000. I have not decided on any particular setting, although I know I definately do not want a solitaire (I''m too old), and I am not fond of three-stone rings. So, I was just lying in bed this morning thinking I should be looking for a setting that will accentuate the diamond, not drown it out....

 

[Angel7]

Congrats A DAY LATE!

I echo what the others were saying..a halo or a very thin band but I would caution trying them on before deciding.
Halos just don''t work on my hand. I recently fell in love with a very thin shared prong setting that made the center stone just pop..PLUS it helps when you have smaller hands!

Have you tried on any settings yet?

 

[sunnyd]

Hmmm, well for $1000 a halo is out. I would go for a thin band; they definitely make the stone look bigger. Ritani's though is $2300 for the white gold. Perhaps the Legato with micropave from Whiteflash? It's closer, at $1400 for WG. LynnB (I think!) has it and it's gorgeous!

ETA: Here's a link to cinnamon13's with lots of pics: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/whiteflash-legato-micro-pave.62564/

 

[A Day Late]

I have been trying on ''wider'' settings up until now. Again BLINGY I love!!! But, now that I put a day or two into thinking about the setting, maybe I am going about this all wrong. Is narrower a better choice?

I fell in love with a setting that is fairly wide, with three little diamonds going down the band on either side, and the centre diamond sits very high up. Help, now I am starting to panick about the wide band thing...

 

[february2003bride]

Date: 2/27/2008 2:00:19 PM
Author: A Day Late
I have been trying on ''wider'' settings up until now. Again BLINGY I love!!! But, now that I put a day or two into thinking about the setting, maybe I am going about this all wrong. Is narrower a better choice?

I fell in love with a setting that is fairly wide, with three little diamonds going down the band on either side, and the centre diamond sits very high up. Help, now I am starting to panick about the wide band thing...

If you love a wide setting, go for it! There are no set in stone rules. My new setting is 4.5mm wide and it makes my diamond look huge!!

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 2/27/2008 2:15:32 PM
Author: february2003bride

Date: 2/27/2008 2:00:19 PM
Author: A Day Late
I have been trying on ''wider'' settings up until now. Again BLINGY I love!!! But, now that I put a day or two into thinking about the setting, maybe I am going about this all wrong. Is narrower a better choice?

I fell in love with a setting that is fairly wide, with three little diamonds going down the band on either side, and the centre diamond sits very high up. Help, now I am starting to panick about the wide band thing...

If you love a wide setting, go for it! There are no set in stone rules. My new setting is 4.5mm wide and it makes my diamond look huge!!

February2003bride, can you please post a link to the ring? I''m curious to see what a 4.5 band looks like for an e-ring. Thanks.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I have a wide band, and I love it! Almost 6mm and I have no regrets...plus, I dont think it shrinks my diamond at all!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/27/2008 1:28:44 PM
Author: sunnyd
Hmmm, well for $1000 a halo is out. I would go for a thin band; they definitely make the stone look bigger. Ritani''s though is $2300 for the white gold. Perhaps the Legato with micropave from Whiteflash? It''s closer, at $1400 for WG. LynnB (I think!) has it and it''s gorgeous!

ETA: Here''s a link to cinnamon13''s with lots of pics: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/whiteflash-legato-micro-pave.62564/

This is exactly what I was going to suggest also. Best of both worlds, with some extra bling, but the small band to help the diamond pop, if you don''t want to go the halo route.

 

[woobug02]

WOOOOOOOOOOOO go wide I love wide rings ....................WOOOOOOOOOOO Februarybride just did a fabulous setting

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I love wide rings also but agree halos or bezels really adds size to any stone!

 

[february2003bride]

Date: 2/27/2008 2:21:35 PM
Author: elle_chris

Date: 2/27/2008 2:15:32 PM
Author: february2003bride

Date: 2/27/2008 2:00:19 PM
Author: A Day Late
I have been trying on ''wider'' settings up until now. Again BLINGY I love!!! But, now that I put a day or two into thinking about the setting, maybe I am going about this all wrong. Is narrower a better choice?

I fell in love with a setting that is fairly wide, with three little diamonds going down the band on either side, and the centre diamond sits very high up. Help, now I am starting to panick about the wide band thing...

If you love a wide setting, go for it! There are no set in stone rules. My new setting is 4.5mm wide and it makes my diamond look huge!!

February2003bride, can you please post a link to the ring? I''m curious to see what a 4.5 band looks like for an e-ring. Thanks.

Absolutely!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-curvaceous-palladium-artcarved-setting.79772/

 

[hairgirl95]

sorry to threadjack but feb2003 I always foam at the mouth when I see your setting. It is so classy looking. My setting is actually 6mm. The stone sits up just enough that it makes its presence known. Probably the largest mm spread I would ever go with though. I did have a 2mm pave band a short time ago, and I liked it, but I realized it didn''t make the diamond look much bigger. In fact, it kinda made it shrink a little!!