Petite or Regular MWM Sunburst?

[bizsteve]

Hi! I''ve decided on the Mark Morrell Sunburst, but am unsure if I should go for the petite or regular?Do any of you who have one, or have actually seen one, have any thoughts?

She (my girlfriend) does not know about this ring or proposal (except that’s something’s abrew) but I know she doesn’t want an overpowering ring.The taper on the Sunburst and the solitaire setting without jewels should address that and be really perfect for her.However, I just can’t tell if the regular is too big?I almost get the sense, from reading posts and trying to look at pictures, that the regular itself is pretty dainty, and that the petite might be really small, and perhaps so small that the curves and features are muted?I figure if I spend 2k on a ring it ought to have some pretty curves and be visible! Thus, I lean toward the regular, but would like to get some opinions.

For background:

The stone is a Round 1.21ct E SI1 with ideal cut.
She is about 5foot 4, 110lb, with size 5 ring finger.

I was wondering if the petite ring is designed more for smaller carats or little hands, or just totally a preference thing?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!Thanks!

 

[shortee78]

I am 5''3 with a size 3.5 finger but I still prefer the regular sunburst over the petite. I like the obvious tapering (I don''t have this ring, but I''m considering it for my upgrade next year)

 

[gwendolyn]

Size-wise, there's very little difference: the regular has a 3mm shank and the petite has a 2.5mm shank. If she hasn't expressly said anything about wanting a really thin band (in which case I'd then opt for the thinner of the two), then I think, with her ring size and the stone size, I would stick with the original.

 

[Lorelei]

I would probably stick with the original, but whichever you choose, you will have a gorgeous ring!

 

[mrssalvo]

well, I''m going to go against the flow and vote for the petite for her finger and stone size. I wear a 3.5 and think 2.5mm is just the right size. 3mm starts to feel thick on me. i also think thinner bands make the center diamond look a little bigger.

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/6/2008 3:45:15 PM
Author: gwendolyn
Size-wise, there''s very little difference: the regular has a 3mm shank and the petite has a 2.5mm shank. If she hasn''t expressly said anything about wanting a really thin band (in which case I''d then opt for the thinner of the two), then I think, with her ring size and the stone size, I would stick with the original.

I agree with Gwen. Before I ever went over to see WF or met Brian Gavin, I had a chance to talk to Mark, and he seems like a GREAT guy. We talked about this very issue. I don''t want to put word in Mark''s mouth, but I thought I remembered that the reason they created the petite sunburst was for customers who wanted a thinner shank. If you don''t want a REALLY thin shank, then I would go with the original sunburst. Great choice by the way. MM rings are really gorgeous.

 

[Melanie611]

I haven''t seen the sunburst setting in person, but I do have a ring by Mark that tapers (see avatar). It''s about the size of the regular sunburst and looks much more delicate in person than the magnified pictures Mark takes. It''s probably due to the tapering, about 1.8mm in the center. So I would choose the regular b/c I like shape. It really puts the diamond in focus. BTW I''m about the same size as your girlfriend with a size 5 finger.

 

[bizsteve]

Thanks everyone! Your posts helped me decide on the regular Sunburst. I spoke to Mark the other day (after the post), and as so many have said -- he is great fun to talk with!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Nevermind...just saw you have already decided!

 

[ladyciel]

Ok. I have the regular sunburst, and though the shank is 3mm at its WIDEST, from above it looks more narrow because most of the top of the finger is covered by the tapering section. I tried 3mm wedding bands with it, and they definitely looked wider. I too wear about a size 5 (ordered a 5.25 from Mark, but we're about to send it to him to have it sized smaller), and my stone is 1.3ct with a spread just a hair under 7mm (6.94-6.98 according to the GIA cert). In this photo I'm wearing it paired with a band from Mark that is just about 2.5mm. I don't think the ring looks heavy at all, and my taste definitely runs towards preferring dainty styles. Honestly, I wouldn't want it to be any smaller, because I love the subtle presence/weight that my ring has. There are plenty more photos of my rings around here (I can dig up the links if you'd like me to), but here's one that shows them well I think. My suggestion would be that unless you know your GF much prefers super dainty rings, you can't go wrong with the classic sunburst.

ETA: Just saw you made your choice.

I approve, obviously.