Oicked the stone...now the setting?

[manyquestions]

I think I''ve decided on the stone (below). Now I am looking at platinum settings; channel or pave setting for the sidestones. I am leaning towards channel. Are there any plusses or minuses to either? She does not have tiny hands but relatively small, I don''t want to get too much "bling" that it looks kind of gaudy.

Thanks

1.60c Princess, H color, VVS1, 1.02 ratio
Depth %: 74.2%, Table %: 72%
Symmetry: Very good, Polish: Excellent
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Culet: None
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 6.38 x 6.23 x 4.62 mm
$10,637

 

[manyquestions]

Im also not really into the cathedral setting...looks too big, but that might just be some of the website pictures I''ve seen.

Thanks for helping the new guy

 

[decodelighted]

Have you already bought the stone? I noticed that it seems smaller than many 1.5 carat stones ... 1.5 carat princesses are usually about 6.5 x 6.5 mm ... this is 1.60 ct & 6.2 x 6.3 ish.

Everyone compromises *somewhere* and if the only potential ding about this stone is "spread" or "face up appearance" ... and you love it ... no problemo!

As to settings ... generally stones look biggest on thinner bands. If you want to maximize size apprearance keep that in mind. Also ... you might want to consider whether she'll want her wedding band to fit snugly up against the setting. A lot of modern settings are tapered or "funky" such that it's impossible to fit wedding bands with them.

* test out the settings WITH wedding bands next to them
or
* choose an e-ring setting that's part of a "set" ... sometimes you can save $ buy buying the w-band at the same time too. With a bit of a "bulk" discount (if you ask) and because gold & platinum prices have been going up up up .. by the time you go back to buy a band ... you might wish you'd gotten it earlier!

Good luck!



ETA: Ritani endless love solitaires have a very nice "shimmery" look .. that almost looks like teensy channel set ... it doesn't have so much "bling" that it takes away from the center stone .. or look "flashy" ... it has a subtle but sparkly clean look. ALSO, those usually fit flush with wedding bands ... and they're very narrow to make the most of the stone's size!

 

[manyquestions]

Thanks for the reply. No I haven''t bought the stone yet. Do you mean that this one will not have as much "visible" face on the top and will be deeper? This stone is off of bluenile.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 12/2/2006 1:49:17 PM
Author: manyquestions
Thanks for the reply. No I haven't bought the stone yet. Do you mean that this one will not have as much 'visible' face on the top and will be deeper? This stone is off of bluenile.

Yeah basically ... different stones have weight distributed in different ways ... this one physical diameter from the face up view is *slightly* smaller than an average 1.5 ct stone ... and yours is 1.6 carats. I don't know too much about princess pricing but stone of that diameter, that would weigh in at say 1.4 carats would be SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive because of the price jump at 1.5 carats (of all shapes).

I'll look around & see if I see anything else to add to the mix ... but it's probably not a big deal.

If you have a few minutes ... type "ritani" into the search bar & you'll see lots of pretty setting ideas real-life Pricescopers have used. It sounds *perfect* for your description of what you want in an e-ring setting!

 

[decodelighted]

Check out this thread about Dani''s Ritani set

(Ha ... it would help if I spelled it right! How could I need more coffee at 2pm?

)

 

[decodelighted]

Well ... I might be changing my mind after seeing this ... I''m not a princess (or any other cut) expert ... but it seems that the super ideal princesses DO face up smaller than the average Princess cuts ... maybe your is like this Whiteflash ID/ID AgsO princess?? If so ... I''d guess the excellent cut & proportions etc will far outweigh the slight ding on spread.