Opinions on settings if you please...

[onedrop]

Hello all!

After racking my brain and driving the BF crazy, I figured I''d get some opinions from fellow PS''ers. We have already purchased our stone from WF....yay! It is a .572ct RB ACA with measurements of 5.40 x 5.42 x 3.27. What I am having trouble with is deciding on the right setting. I am wavering between two choices.

Since this is a smallish stone, I don''t want the setting to *overpower* my beautiful center stone. I definitely want an eternity style setting but I am concerned about the sparkle factor I guess. Since many posters here at PS have similar style settings I know this is the place to get the best opinions. Let me get to the point...which setting do you prefer for a stone with the above carat weight and measurements?

I''ll post my two choices below. Prior to doing so, I would like to say that I hope Jelly and Shucash do not mind that I am posting their beautiful rings, but they are both GORGEOUS!

Here is choice #1:

 

[onedrop]

Choice #2:

 

[kcoursolle]

Both are gorgeous, I really think you could go either way. I''m loving the prongs on the second one. I think if you decide to go the eternity route, you might want to keep the band thin (2mm or under). This will really help make the stone look bigger and help the stone pop. I have a .74 ring on a band that is 1.4mm and people always say that my stone looks much bigger than it is.

 

[Stone Hunter]

The second one doesn''t have stones all the way around. That''s good. It leaves room for resizing if needed.

Does the first one have stones all the way around?

Both are very pretty.

 

[onedrop]

Wow! Thanks for the quick replies!

Stone Hunter: The first is half-eternity if I remember correctly. I definitely want to leave space for re-sizing, so I am planning to go with the 3/4 eternity look.

Kcourselle: thanks for the tip. A thin band is exactly what I am looking for. Although with both of these I think the thinnest they will go is maybe 2.3mm (at least that is what I was told). Your band is 1.4mm? That is VERY thin! Is your wedding band just as thin?

 

[kcoursolle]

Yes, my band is 1.4mm. It''s a split shank design with 2 bands, and they are both 1.4mm. I won''t be wearing a wedding band with it. Because it''s so thin, they had to make the bands a little taller height wise so they are still surdy. I''ve had absolutely no problems with my rings and they are set in 14k white gold. Many designers are hesitant to go this thin though. They should be able to do the designs under 2.3mm though, I think Lynn b''s fishtail pave was 2.1mm.

 

[Cehrabehra]

because of the difference in photos, I don''t see the difference... they look like the same eternity band plus solitaire combo ring to me... is there a dif in how the side stones are set?

 

[mrssalvo]

I vote for number 2 which like Lynn b''s. it''s my all time favorite setting that WF does...

 

[Sundial]

Both choices are just beautiful, but I like the second one best as well.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 9/16/2006 9:48:47 PM
Author: mrssalvo
I vote for number 2 which like Lynn b''s. it''s my all time favorite setting that WF does...

Me too, I love that setting!!! It''s gorgeous!!!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 9/16/2006 9:47:35 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
because of the difference in photos, I don't see the difference... they look like the same eternity band plus solitaire combo ring to me... is there a dif in how the side stones are set?

Sooooo, since I've had both, I will say that they really are entirely different looks, and if at all possible, I think it would really help if you went to a jewelry store and tried each style on to see it in person first.

My shared prong set was 3 pointers, semi-eternity, (about 2.3 mm wide) and there was quite a lot of bling going on. Surprisingly so, in fact. Do you want that, or would you rather that your center stone take the stage a little more? Also, note the side view of the rings... some people don't really care for the distinctive side view of most shared prong rings. And if you are planning to wear a shared prong w-ring, too, note that SOME s/p style rings can scratch or damage each other if the girdles of the small diamonds are exposed. WF takes care that that doesn't happen with their s/p rings, but if you buy from somewhere else, be sure you check on that.

My fishtail pave set (90% eternity) is made with smaller melee, less than 2 pointers, (width of rings are about 2mm wide) and there is a definite difference in the bling factor. I don't really get *fire* from those tiny melee (unless I am out in the bright sun). Most of the time, it is a subtle "shimmer" rather than a bolder "sparkle". I think it really makes my center stone *POP*. Also, the side view is quite different, and I think it is a beautiful look. But it is pave, and some people have had problems with losing those tiny stones.

I ADORE my fishtail pave rings, and I have never regretted the decision to have the reset done. I think it is a classic, timeless style and I am very happy with it.

Here's a link to my thread with lots more photos.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finally-gorgeous-new-fishtail-pave-set-from-wf.46129/=

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/16/2006 11:06:23 PM
Author: Lynn B

My shared prong set was 3 pointers, semi-eternity, (about 2.3 mm wide) and there was quite a lot of bling going on. Surprisingly so, in fact. Do you want that, or would you rather that your center stone take the stage a little more? Also, note the side view of the rings... some people don''t really care for the distinctive side view of most shared prong rings. And if you are planning to wear a shared prong w-ring, too, note that SOME s/p style rings can scratch or damage each other if the girdles of the small diamonds are exposed. WF takes care that that doesn''t happen with their s/p rings, but if you buy from somewhere else, be sure you check on that.

My fishtail pave set (90% eternity) is made with smaller melee, less than 2 pointers, (width of rings are about 2mm wide) and there is a definite difference in the bling factor. I don''t really get *fire* from those tiny melee (unless I am out in the bright sun). Most of the time, it is a subtle ''shimmer'' rather than a bolder ''sparkle''. I think it really makes my center stone *POP*. Also, the side view is quite different, and I think it is a beautiful look. But it is pave, and some people have had problems with losing those tiny stones.

I am so glad you shared this! I''ve been wondering what different sized melee does... the only thing I have here for reference is .05 in a channel set and it''s cut for brilliance (at best lol) and has NO fire at all.

I tried on some shared prong and the feel of it bugged me... I tend to rub my thumb on the ring as a habit and it felt like a very fine zipper to me and while it didn''t hurt it was too much texture or something and distracting. Made me even wonder if I really want milgrain or not (though I''ve seen some very very fine milgrain that didn''t bug me).

I read your other thread (I particularly love your head ) but this info was very helpful! Now that I''ve decided what I want I have to figure how I''m going to stuff it all into 6mm ROFL! Thank you

 

[gailrmv]

I love that fishtail pave style. That would be my vote! I also like the ritani endless love style (with or without halo) for a ring of your size!

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I like the second setting as well for your stone.

 

[Idealistic]

I like the second one better.

 

[onedrop]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for all the replies!

I actually am leaning towards the #2 choice also. It is so pretty and distinctive! And would be more my *style* if you will.

Lynn: I am SO happy that you chimed in because you have the same if not a similar setting! In fact I have been regularly going through your thread for reference. I LOVE your setting and that rock!!! And thank you for the explanation about the sparkle factor. Your description of *bling* versus *sparkle* was wonderful because I can picture exactly what you mean. I am acutally getting the setting through WF as well so I know that they will make all attempts to make the band as thin as possible without compromising the stones.

So it looks as if the fishtail is it! Just to be sure I will try on some shared prong settings if I can find some places near me. Anyone have suggestions for trying settings in the DC/MD metro area?

 

[onedrop]

So number #1 is a no go it seems. After doing further research here on PS I came across another choice. Don''t kill me...

But I really like the WF Aramis setting as well. I love the side profile as well as the way the melee is set into the shank. Just an aside: as I type this, I NEVER thought I would be using these terms (melee, shank, shared-prong,etc.). I was such a tomboy in my day. I guess that is what a little PS will do for you.

What are your thoughts on this one??? This is bluej422''s beautiful enagement ring:

 

[Lynn B]

We are SO on the same page, onedrop!

When I was researching my recent reset, I was debating between the Aramis (which is gorgeous!) and the fishtail. I really like the Aramis, but in the end, I decided I LOVE the rounded shank and beautiful (and unique) side-view detail of the fishtail. The side view of the Aramis (while indeed lovely) just didn't speak to me the way the fishtail did.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/17/2006 2:29:17 PM
Author: Lynn B
We are SO on the same page, onedrop!

When I was researching my recent reset, I was debating between the Aramis (which is gorgeous!) and the fishtail. I really like the Aramis, but in the end, I decided I LOVE the rounded shank and beautiful (and unique) side-view detail of the fishtail. The side view of the Aramis (while indeed lovely) just didn''t speak to me the way the fishtail did.

boy, it sure would be helpful to have closeup pictures, descriptions, pros and cons of *all* the different melee settings in one thread! I just recently started noticing the differences! lol What sort of setting does that first ring above have?

 

[onedrop]

Lynn: We are definitely on the same page.

I was away from PS for a while, so I read about your setting change after the fact. And I saw that you were maybe, possibly considering the Aramis setting. I love the head on that Aramis. And I like the melee in the shank of your ring. I am pretty sure that I can achieve a happy medium and have both. After sleeping on it for a couple of days, I think that''s my decision.

Ced: I apologize for not providing specifics on the differences.

#1 is a half eternity shared prong setting.
#2 is the fishtail pave like Lynn''s but with a different head.
#3 I am not sure of the correct terminology for this one, but can say that the head is nicely shaped and the melee seems to be set lower in the shank.

I think I have made my choice....I am going with the fishtail pave shank and the Aramis head!! Thanks EVERYONE for your input. I am so indecisive on this. So your opinions really helped. In real life, I am so much more definitive, but this project is another matter entirely.

 

[kcoursolle]

Congrats on your decision, it should be beautiful! Can''t wait to see pictures.

 

[onedrop]

Thanks kcourselle! I will definitely be posting pictures as soon as I can. Ahhhh the wait....