Opinions on these two custom settings please?

[Skittlejelly]

Hi

I'm struggling to decide between two settings for my three-stone e-ring, which is going to be a custom job. I can't decide between a four-prong, open "tiffany" style setting, or a four-prong basket setting. I'll attach pics below - they're not perfect as it was just my quick photoshop job on two existing solitaire settings to incorporate the 2 side stones... but they should give enough of a comparison. For the first one, I like being able to see the side of the stones, but I'm told this means that the prongs have to be a little thicker and straighter in order to be sturdy enough without the support bar. The second picture has slightly more curved prongs, which I like, and the prongs will be able to be smaller - but at the expense of being able to see the side of the stones.

I think I've been looking so much at the details that I'm now finding it difficult to see the overall "look" - so I'd really love some input.

I've found some threads on this sort of comparison for solitaires but couldn't find anything for 3-stone settings....Opinions??? If it makes any difference, the centre stone will be 1.2 and the two side stones will be 0.4

 

[MissGotRocks]

What shape stones are you working with? The first picture looks like it has princess stones and the second one cushion shaped.

You also need to bear in mind what the three stones will look like face on and not just the side view. Do you want the side stones tucked a little under the center stone or do you want them to be three separate stones?

Here is a thread with a three stone ring with proportions similar to yours - see how the side stones are tucked a bit under the center? See if you like this look. . .[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/bgd-truth-x3-3-stone-upgrade.144516/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/bgd-truth-x3-3-stone-upgrade.144516/[/URL]

 

[Orchid Lei]

I prefer the 2nd one. You'll probably end up having the shank meet the side stones at the bar across though, I think, like the profile on this ring: http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...tone-trellis-diamond-engagement-ring-1025.htm It flows better than the 1st one IMO.

 

[Christina...]

I'm not a fan of either so I won't be much help. To me, the heads look as though they are sitting quite high and I'd be worried about banging them and causing damage. I think that I would be prefer a cathedral setting similar to this....

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/three-stone/queen-dinah-3-stone-pave-18k-white-gold-5679w18

or this with a pave band..

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/three-stone-trellis-18k-white-gold-5376w18
http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/three-stone/3-stone-butterflies-diamond-engagement-ring-230.htm
http://www.engagementringsdirect.com/anna-three-stone-ring-bpid-318-15.html

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I also really do not like either of those. They both look like the 3 heads were just stuck on the top of the band. I much prefer something like the BG Truth 3 stone setting or even a plain basket setting:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI1-Excellent-Cut-Round-Diamond-1475327.asp

 

[Skittlejelly]

Thanks so much for your replies. The stones will be RBs. Thanks for that link, MissGotRocks - I do like that look but I think I would want the stones just a little more separated rather than having the sidestones quite as tucked in under the centre. More just sitting next to each other, rather than tucked underneath. I'm not sure what that would mean for the angle/height of the side stones though..

Orchid Lei, I think I know what you mean. One of them was originally a cathedral setting: http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...en-cathedral-diamond-engagement-ring-1539.htm but when I edited it to see what the heads would look like as a set of 3 rather than as a solitaire I had to cut out the cathedral part. But I agree that having the shank rise up a little to meet the side stones would look better, and help protect them a little bit too, what do you think?

Christina, I have actually been looking at that Queen Dinah! I'm getting a quote from BG too, to see if they can do a shared prong setting for the mellee in the shank (rather than pave). Thanks also for the other suggestions, but I don't really like the trellis look - they just look too busy for my tastes, and I also want the wedding band to be able to sit flush against it.

And just to clarify: yes, those pictures will look like the heads were just stuck on top of the band: They aren't actual pictures of rings, I only posted them to show the comparison of the two head styles when in a 3-stone setting rather than a solitaire (which was what they originally were) - not to give an indication of how they would integrate with the rest of the ring. A bit misleading in retrospect

So regardless of how the heads sit on the band, it sounds as though a basket setting looks better?

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think the basket type settings give you more of a spread on the top of the hand. Some three stone rings with pinched mountings for each stone make the stones too bunched up on top IMO.

 

[stargurl78]

Of the 2 you posted, I like the 2nd one better. But I like the options that MGR, Orchid Lei, and Christina posted better than those 2 choices. My favorite is the WF Butterflies setting, hands down. I also really like that one from ERD.

 

[jacy]

Skittle, of the two you posted I prefer the second one. But I love the BGD Queen Dinah that Christina posted!

 

[rainydaze]

The first thing that also came to my mind when I saw your mockups was BGD's Queen Dinah! Someone here got it so I have posted their links - the first link shows the side profile. I know you are concerned about the bars obscuring the side view of the diamonds - that would be a huge concern of mine too. However, I think the Dinah doesn't obscure too much. I don't recall seeing a three stone that I liked similar to the first one you posted (and I've been looking at three stones obsessively since I first came to PS, love 'em!). The Dinah is soooo pretty in all other respects and one of the prettiest three stones *I've* ever seen, that I would make that compromise. Plus it's a little safer which experience has taught me is worth it.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/3-stone-hearts-and-arrows-ring-from-bgd.175227/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/3-stone-hearts-and-arrows-ring-from-bgd.175227/[/URL]
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/more-e-ring-pictures.177515/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/more-e-ring-pictures.177515/[/URL]

 

[Skittlejelly]

Wow, lots of love for the Queen Dinah!

I'm feeling a lot more confident going forward with a basket setting so thanks for all your replies. I've been thinking about this so much that I've had rings and diamonds in my dreams (which is not really a bad thing; I wake up happy )

So I think I've finally decided that I'll get something similar to the Queen Dinah but with a shared-prong melee (when I've tried on rings at B&M stores, I've liked this better than pave).

Will update once I have some images...