Need help picking a setting!!!

[twein28]

Hi everyone! I am new on here..I have been looking for a setting for an engagement ring for months now. I have the stone already, a round brilliant cut stone. I have changed my mind so many different times that I am now lost. I wanted something with pave work around the setting and underneath, but then I feel limited with a wedding band. Yesterday, I saw a bullet baguette type look. It was really pretty in the setting, but I couldn''t decide if it was boring. The micropave rings I saw were more interesting, but I don''t want to lose stones from it and be limited on a wedding band. Please help me decide!!!

Also, I never priced rings with baguettes. I assume the setting is more money, but I am not sure. Do you know a ballpark figure of what a bullet setting would be (to accompany a 2 carat stone)??

Here are two pictures of two very different looks I had in mind:

http://www.diamondsonfifth.com/pc-17347-52-platinum-tapered-bullet-setting.aspx

http://www.afishman.com/TiffanySplitShank.htm

Please share comments/thoughts. Thanks!

 

[bee*]

Personally I prefer the split shank look to the other one. In terms of pricing, if you go to Whiteflash site, they have many settings on there with the prices listed so you can get an idea.

 

[Dreamer1116]

Split Shank

 

[zoebartlett]

I can''t answer your question but I actually prefer the first setting over the split shank of the second.

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

Both are pretty and I don't think that either one would limit you that much with regards to a band. The split shank could be designed so the the band fits next to the diamond gallery and the tapered bullets setting would look great with a matching band.

 

[Tuckins1]

Weelll... I AM partial to split shanks... (My avatar) and I adore that one that you posted!! I second the whiteflash motion. They have many beautiful pieces that are a bit less expensive than the one you posted. Also, take a look at this site:
Knox
I think they have some beautiful designs here too!

 

[packrat]

I like the split shank too, and I''ve heard nothing but wonderful things about Whiteflash-I''d check it out!

 

[twein28]

thanks...what about the micropave falling out of the setting? I read that sometimes you lose diamonds within.

 

[Tuckins1]

Date: 1/1/2009 10:54:55 AM
Author: twein28
thanks...what about the micropave falling out of the setting? I read that sometimes you lose diamonds within.

Yes, pave is more delicate and it is possible to lose stones... I have pave on both of my rings, and I have not (yet) lost a stone, and i''m pretty rough with my hands!

 

[tyty333]

I prefer the split shank. I have the setting with the diamond in the middle and a baguette on either side. Not as many diamonds as the bullet one
you are looking at. The thing I dont like about the baguettes is that they dont put out much sparkle. I would prefer more bling. They do seem
to be pretty sturdy (the baguettes) after 10 years of wearing - no problem. I''m currently trying to add a wedding band to my set that has some
round diamonds so I get a little more bling.

Both of them are pretty but I like the split shank the best.

 

[sparklestick]

I prefer the first option. I think more classical.

Have you tried both styles on?

 

[oneandahalfrock]

I much prefer the first one- I think the style is more classic, something that won''t look totally dated in a decade, and just in terms of wearablity, it just seems like it would hold up better. Of course, I''m a bit anti-pave right now, so I may be biased (my friend got engaged and within like two weeks she lost a pave stone ).