millimeters, and sausagy fingers, and customizing, OH MY!!!

[gammongirl]

This forum has been a great resource, I''m hoping I can personalize some of the advice...

I''ve pretty much decided on a setting, but am planning on making a few changes. In my head, the changes are subtle- but I''m worried that it could somehow change something that I didn''t even know I loved about the ring. The setting is a beautiful Irina Ferry design: platinum engagement ring with a brilliant cut diamond set in a cushion shaped, channel style mounting with 0.25cts of diamonds surrounding the center and 3/4 down the shank. (I''ll attach photos below. If the photos don''t work, the ring can be found here: http://www.sohogem.com/ps-499-2-40-90-117.aspx?pagenum=3&SortType=0)

I love the setting but am planning to make two changes:
1- smaller stone. The sample ring has a 1.70 brilliant round. I have a 1.23 BR that the store said they would use as long as it''s certified (it is). My first concern is that the smaller center stone might change the look of the ring since the ratio between the center stone and the channel style halo mounting will be different - the store said the measurement of the halo/mounting part will remain the same, even with the smaller stone. I don''t have the exact measurements of the stone in the sample ring (and the photos below), but my stone is 6.79-6.84x4.29mm. Do you thing the smaller stone will significantly change the look of the ring- making the halo/mounting part more dominant than it looks in the sample ring?

2- one thing I''ve learned in our e-ring search is that I prefer a band that tapers or has some shape because bands that are the same width all of the way around seem to make my finger appear even shorter than it is. (similar to wearing cropped pants with my short legs just makes my legs look shorter!) So, I''m planning to have the band start out a little wider and taper as it gets closer to the delicate stone center mounting. On other rings I''ve preferred bands that get wider toward the center, but it seems that would take away from the design of this ring. I''m pretty sure that the channel-set mounting is the same width as the band - and I wonder if changing the band size will take away from that symmetry or uniformed look. Thoughts? If not, what do you think the smallest mm measurement would be to be able to very gradually taper the width of the band without it changing the balanced, clean look of the sample ring? Is .5 mm too much of a difference? Would less than .5mm not even look tapered? Does having a band that''s narrower near the center mounting highlight my sausagy / finger-muffin-top issue that I''m actually trying to avoid with all of this tapering business???

And yes, there is part of me that thinks I should accept the design as is because I don''t want to risk a subtle difference changing my visceral reaction to the ring --I''ve seen many similar styles but there''s something about the lines of this ring that just appeal to me as others haven''t. But the other part of me knows that my insecurities about my sausagy fingers could take away from my enjoyment of the ring. (Changing the stone size is out of my hands - we have a stone to use that is beautiful, so that one is a definite. The band tapering is optional.)

So, any thoughts about how much, and in what way, the smaller stone size will change the look of the design or the shape of the cushion-shaped mounting + any thoughts about tapering the band would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!!! I really appreciate any and all advice!

 

[gammongirl]

Here''s the picture - don''t think it worked with my original post. thanks!

 

[gammongirl]

one more view...

 

[FrekeChild]

Wow! I think that ring is gorgeous! I don''t have any thoughts about the tapering or not. I feel like my fingers look best with a really thin band, and less chubby.

May I ask what ring size you wear?

 

[gammongirl]

I meant to include my size in the post, thanks. I''ve been told my size is 6.25 - 6.5

 

[arjunajane]

Well, I def. do Not think they should be trying to put a 1.2ct diamond in a setting made for a 1.7ct - that just will simply not work,
and will end up changing the whole look of the ring, as there will than be an "airline" between the diamond and halo.
They need to cutsom make the design for your diamond, and I would not accept anything less.

On the tapering - I don't really think it will work with this design, sorry. You could have a slight increase in width heading toward the bottom of the ring
where there are no diamonds, and this is usually recommended for structural reasons. But I'm not sure if that will create the effect you're after?
I just don't think I've seen a taper with this legacy-style before?
If anyone has a pic would be good, but I'm having a hard time picturing it..

note: this is bead set diamonds, not channel set

 

[FrekeChild]

The more I look at it, the more I think I''d leave it alone. Have you tried it on? What mm is the band?

 

[beechezz]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 107px">Date: 4/13/2009 3:09:25 AM
Author: arjunajane
Well, I def. do Not think they should be trying to put a 1.2ct diamond in a setting made for a 1.7ct - that just will simply not work,
and will end up changing the whole look of the ring, as there will than be an ''airline'' between the diamond and halo.
They need to cutsom make the design for your diamond, and I would not accept anything less.

On the tapering - I don''t really think it will work with this design, sorry. You could have a slight increase in width heading toward the bottom of the ring
where there are no diamonds, and this is usually recommended for structural reasons. But I''m not sure if that will create the effect you''re after?
I just don''t think I''ve seen a taper with this legacy-style before?
If anyone has a pic would be good, but I''m having a hard time picturing it..

note: this is bead set diamonds, not channel set

I agree completely that the setting will not look right without having it specifically made to suit your stone. This is a beautiful setting though! Please let us know what you decide.

 

[MMT]

I agree that''s a gorgeous setting but I would worry about the size difference

 

[risingsun]

I think getting the setting made to fit the size of the diamond is the way to go. BTW, the setting is beautiful, as is!

 

[cellentani]

Beautiful ring, gammongirl - I love the design, and have always loved a round brilliant in a cushion halo. I''m afraid I agree with the others that putting your stone in the existing setting will look odd, and you''ll end up with an airline like arjunajane said. The prongs will also have to be set further towards the middle, and you''ll probably see metal in the airline.

Secondly, you do not have sausagy fingers; I wear a 6.5 - 7 myself! But I do have size 4-envy, so I know what you mean. As someone who wears a similar size, I''ve found that a thin band is the most slimming and elongating. Have you tried the ring on and are unhappy with how it looks? Otherwise, I would think it''s perfect the way it is.

If the retail store isn''t able to accommodate your stone, try contacting Irina Ferry directly (maybe through SohoGem?). Hope it works out for you, because it''s a gorgeous setting!

 

[beau13]

Hey Gammongirl, I just had a similar ring custom made. The pics you posted are pretty much what I provided the designer, and told him to tweak it a bit. My round is 1.76, and I was told, a ring like this would have to be custom made. I don't think the 1.3 carat diamond you want to add will be overpowered by the halo at all. The designer will make the halo the appropriate size, according to the diamond I would imagine. In my case, I told him, as thin as possible around the center stone (2mm would be good). I also wanted the shoulders (shank) to swoop upward, just as your pictures portray. The only difference (you can see a profile shot in the thread I provided below), is my ring had some extra gold added to it (I like thicker, substantial looking jewelry) for my size 6.5 finger..as well as some detail added to the gallery (where the open space is in your pictures). If you took away the scrollwork, on mine, it would look liek the photos you posted. Two bars of gold, that form a "V" underneath. I wanted it to resemble the Tiffany Legacy, but more gold, with a little more "pizazz"..something unique and original to make mine stand out from the crowd

. There are more pics posted here:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/calling-beau13.111889/

If I were you, I would look into getting quotes, for a custom ring to be made, that way it will be just as you want it!!

Note: My ring has bead set diamonds, 3mm wide shank with NO taper.

 

[ahappygirl]

That is a gorgeous setting!! Having said that, , I would have them remake it for your size diamond. I have a 1.22 RB in a halo WITH an very small airline, which I personally love - but the setting was designed for a stone this size to just over this size/ max probably around 1.5ct. My halo is round, though, and an airline might look odd in your situation because of the more significant difference in size stone that is in there now vs. your stone, as well as the cushion shaped halo (gorgeous!) would give a very difference airline effect/ change the look of the ring. It may still be beautiful but maybe not the look you want personally?

As far as the band, if you love it on your finger now, I''d leave it as it is. If not, and you decide to have it remade anyway for your size stone, I like the idea of slightly tapering the band. If they won''t do that for you or you are unsure if you''ll love the result, keep shopping around.

Good luck!

 

[LD]

Stunning setting.

I can only echo what others have said about having a setting made for your diamond. I don''t know if you''ve ever set a stone before but I can tell you that even .25mm can make a big difference to how it all "fits" together. You can end up seeing more metal between the halo and the diamond which might look strange.

As for the tapering, that''s probably personal choice. I''ve got size 6 fingers so know what you mean when you say sausages!!! Tapered shanks do have a slimming effect. The setting you''ve chosen however, is also excellent for chubby fingers. I have a Tiffany replica setting and it''s a great size and looks substantial.

 

[atroop711]

Date: 4/13/2009 1:41:20 AM
Author: gammongirl
Here''s the picture - don''t think it worked with my original post. thanks!

I have one word.......YUMMMMMMMMMMM

 

[gammongirl]

Thanks for all of the great feedback!

I should clarify a few things:

The intention is definitely to build a new custom ring to fit my stone. When I said that the measurement of the halo wouldn''t change I meant that the depth (or width?) that surrounds the stone wouldn''t change, but the length of each side would to accomodate the smaller stone. Essentially the halo would have the same depth as the sample and the same size stones (I think) but the length and width of the halo would be smaller. Does that make sense? Kind of a shrunken version of the sample ring. Without having the actual measurements of the 1.7c stone, I was trying to estimate how much "shrinkage" would occur with a 1.23 stone -- basically how much less of my finger would be covered by the halo than the sample ring. My fear is that the smaller version will change the look of the ring.

In terms of the tapered band. I did try on the sample ring, but I couldn''t quite tell how the band looked since it was a smaller size than my finger. As far as I could tell, it did look like a pretty dramatic straight line that would "shorten" my finger. I do need to find out how many mm the band is. I want to say 1.5mm, but I''m not 100% sure. Is it typical for the band to be the same mm as the halo? If I remember correctly, they appeared to be the same mm. I should have written it down, but I think the designer said they could taper the band up to an additional 1mm. arjunajane- I definitely agree it''s hard to picture with this ring. I also would appreciate any photos!

Again, I love this this feedback. Keep it coming!

 

[tyty333]

Now, that makes since...smaller stone...smaller halo. It will not change the overall look of the ring (IMO) and it will
be gorgeous (IMO). A little bit of tappering (widening) up near the halo I think would be fine. I dont think its
going to be enough to make a big difference though. Your still keeping 1 row of diamonds in the shank right?

 

[musey]

Date: 4/13/2009 1:39:13 AM
Author:gammongirl
This forum has been a great resource, I'm hoping I can personalize some of the advice...

I've pretty much decided on a setting, but am planning on making a few changes. In my head, the changes are subtle- but I'm worried that it could somehow change something that I didn't even know I loved about the ring. The setting is a beautiful Irina Ferry design: platinum engagement ring with a brilliant cut diamond set in a cushion shaped, channel style mounting with 0.25cts of diamonds surrounding the center and 3/4 down the shank. (I'll attach photos below. If the photos don't work, the ring can be found here: http://www.sohogem.com/ps-499-2-40-90-117.aspx?pagenum=3&SortType=0)

The sidestones are bead set, not channel set, just to let you know

it's helpful to know the terminology so you know what to ask for in the future.

I love the setting but am planning to make two changes:

1- smaller stone. The sample ring has a 1.70 brilliant round. I have a 1.23 BR that the store said they would use as long as it's certified (it is). My first concern is that the smaller center stone might change the look of the ring since the ratio between the center stone and the channel style halo mounting will be different - the store said the measurement of the halo/mounting part will remain the same, even with the smaller stone. I don't have the exact measurements of the stone in the sample ring (and the photos below), but my stone is 6.79-6.84x4.29mm. Do you thing the smaller stone will significantly change the look of the ring- making the halo/mounting part more dominant than it looks in the sample ring?

I don't personally feel that it would... though everyone's tolerances for that are different. You aren't likely to go from loving it with these proportions to not loving it with the proportions your stone allows for, IMO.

2- one thing I've learned in our e-ring search is that I prefer a band that tapers or has some shape because bands that are the same width all of the way around seem to make my finger appear even shorter than it is. (similar to wearing cropped pants with my short legs just makes my legs look shorter!) So, I'm planning to have the band start out a little wider and taper as it gets closer to the delicate stone center mounting. On other rings I've preferred bands that get wider toward the center, but it seems that would take away from the design of this ring. I'm pretty sure that the channel-set mounting is the same width as the band - and I wonder if changing the band size will take away from that symmetry or uniformed look. Thoughts? If not, what do you think the smallest mm measurement would be to be able to very gradually taper the width of the band without it changing the balanced, clean look of the sample ring? Is .5 mm too much of a difference? Would less than .5mm not even look tapered? Does having a band that's narrower near the center mounting highlight my sausagy / finger-muffin-top issue that I'm actually trying to avoid with all of this tapering business???

I personally disagree that a band that becomes wider by the head wouldn't suit the setting - I think it would look beautiful that way. BUT, that's very much a personal preference thing, and I tend to gravitate toward that shape of shank anyhow. You may want to have someone do a photoshop for you before you rule it out, because you might be surprised at the look.

Whether changing/adding a taper to the shank would change your love for the ring is again entirely subjective. Perhaps someone will do the aforementioned photoshop for you, because I think it would help you. I would take your jeweler's advice on the amount of taper... sometimes it's good to trust the experts, rather than trying to control every detail. Many people find that if they follow their OWN instincts, they come out with a lot of features that they LOVED separately, but don't love at all together. A designer is generally much better at envisioning the whole picture.

What creates sausage fingers is a too-tight ring, plain and simple. Just make sure you get the right size, and you'll be fine

 

[Mary K]

I think with a 1.23 center stone and a halo you will still have very nice finger coverage on a size 6.25/6.5 finger. I wear a size 7 and my center stone is a 0.77 RB with a square halo style setting and I am happy with my finger coverage. As for the tapered band, maybe you could try a slight split to the shank instead. Mine has just a slight split that gives it the perfect width for me while still leaving room for a wedding band later. I thought my sausage fingers looked really bad with just the skinny band, so I''m much more comfortable with this. (It''s not the best photo, but it gives you the idea.)

Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[musey]

edit: hold on, lost the link...

 

[gammongirl]

Again, I can''t tell you how helpful this feedback has been! Photoshop is a great idea. Now I just have to find someone who can do that! Someone should have a website just for this purpose! Do most jewelers give some type of mock-up/photoshop or "proof" for customized rings. Also, Mary K-that split shank definitely would solve my finger insecurity issues (my fingers look like your hand''s long lost twin!), but I think that might take away from this ring''s design. Basically, I have to reconcile the difference between what I love about the lines and design of the ring when it stands alone vs what it looks like on my finger (plus reconcile the imaginary image of it on my fingersince the sample ring was too small!) I think Musey hit the nail on the head; I''m trying to piece together elements of rings that sat on my finger well- but risk losing something the designer''s eye can see that I can''t.

While I ponder that, here are the measurements of the sample ring: band is 1.2mm, halo depth=1.2 mm, diameter of halo+ stone =10.2 mm. The shank could be gradually increased up to 2.2mm. I do not think I''d want a whole mm increase. I tried to estimate the diameter would be for the halo + my stone. If the saple is 10.2 with 1.2halo can I assume the stone measures 7.7mm? My stone is 6.8mm so I''m thinking the l x w of the halo area would be 1mm less...9.2mm. Does that calculation seem right? Would 1mm in diameter (from. 10.2 to 9.2) be a noticable difference on my 6.25-6.5 finger? (yes, the visual for 1mm totally eludes me! Apparently I don''t own a measuring device that shows milimeters!) Thanks!!!

 

[gammongirl]

Yes, keeping one row of diamonds. But thinking of tapering the reverse way. Will a band that gets thinner near the center make my finger look fuller instead of slimmer? Does a general rule exist for this (ie a general ''what not to wear'' tip is that pants that taper inward rarely flatter but bootcut or flared jeans usually balance thighs & calves)?

 

[musey]

Date: 4/14/2009 1:36:27 AM
Author: gammongirl
Yes, keeping one row of diamonds. But thinking of tapering the reverse way. Will a band that gets thinner near the center make my finger look fuller instead of slimmer? Does a general rule exist for this (ie a general ''what not to wear'' tip is that pants that taper inward rarely flatter but bootcut or flared jeans usually balance thighs & calves)?

Maybe, I''m not sure... have you tried on both styles to see? A large percentage of solitaire styles have this... I''ve heard BOTH directions of taper reffered to as BOTH tapered and reverse-tapered, so I don''t know which is which. But I can tell you that if you go to a well-stocked jewelery store and tell them that you want to try on all three types of solitaires: ones that don''t taper, ones that get smaller toward the head, and ones that get larger toward the head.

That would hopefully answer once and for all what you like on your hand, because really, it''s all subjective. Some people think that thin shanks (which the one you''re looking at is - EXTREMELY thin, most often "thin" means absolutely no thinner than 2mm) make their fingers look slimmer, while others (I happen to be in this camp) think that wider shanks make their fingers look slimmer. In the end it really comes down to your personal perception, because everyone is looking for (and therefore sees) something different.

I think that if there''s a particular concern that you have (ie. shape of the shank and its visual impact on your finger), then you''d be doing yourself a great disservice by making educated guesses for a custom project based on the feedback/ideas you get here. Just take a little time to check things out yourself in person so that you''ve covered all your bases!