Picking sidestones for red spinel

[pregcurious]

I thought I'd bring you along for the ride of my red spinel reset. I am working with David Klass to pick side stones for my red spinel. Here are the 2 pairs that I have picked out so far as being the closest in size to my preference. The other side stones were larger. David is going to look for alternatives in this size range.

My stone is being set in a basket setting to allow as much light as possible to enter the stone. As you can see, the stone is medium dark, and when enclosed in the back (as shown in the box), it is too dark (for my preference and probably yours too). This is why I opted for a three stone versus a halo. I usually love halos and cluster rings.

The first picture shows sides that total 0.37 carats, the second shows sides that total 0.46. The center stone is 8.3 x 6.4 mm, and is a Burmese red spinel that I have owned for several years. I have a ring size of 4, and am concerned with finger coverage. I may opt for a five stone (with small tapered baguettes) to address that concern.

Comments are welcome, including critical ones.

 

[pregcurious]

David suggested a total of 6 pairs of sidestones. I will not show all of them, but here is the largest (0.83 total carat weight), which I am showing because they are step cut.

I like the general cut a lot, despite the shadowing that I see in them (the line across, kind of like a bow-tie that you see in ovals). However, they are too large for my taste.

 

[GregS]

Ring size 4, wow, my gf is a 5 and the jeweler thought that was small. I can without a doubt say the second set of diamonds pictured flatters your Spinel much more so than the first set pictured.

Edit: Now that there is a new picture I must clarify, I still prefer the second picture in the first post. I don't see any reason to go that big, with your ring size you will get good coverage with the smaller diamonds.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, Greg. Do you mean the 0.46 carat set? That is the size that my husband picked.

 

[pregcurious]

Here are my inspiration rings, for proportions:

 

[GregS]

Thanks, Greg. Do you mean the 0.46 carat set? That is the size that my husband picked.

Yes, .46, your husband is a wise man.

 

[pregcurious]

Here's another ring I like from LM. I prefer the double prongs for security.

 

[SomethingSinful]

I think the .37 pair are more in line with the look you are trying to achieve.

 

[shulaibaoma]

0.37 pair looks good enough to me.

 

[T L]

The .37 pair looks to have the best proportion to the spinel.

I like the double prongs as well. The other difference in TG's ring to the Leon photo you posted is that she has baguettes and the LM photo has what looks like small trillions or traps, which give still yet a more subdued side stone look. With such a small finger, you may want a more subdued five stone ring, although I think a three stone ring would work as well.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, TL, shulai, and somethingsinful.

TL, thanks for verbalizing that difference. If David can find step cuts in the 0.37 range, I may go for baguettes for a five stone because they are step cut as well. In general, I am leaning towards 0.46 for a three stone, and 0.37 for a five stone.

 

[GregS]

The proportions in your inspiration rings are very similar to what is seen with the .46ct pair. You couldn't go wrong though, the .37 pair would look lovely as well.

 

[pregcurious]

I feel like the pad's proportions are like the 0.37 and the diamond ring (2nd ring pictured above) has proportions more like the 0.46.

Anyway, they're both very close.

 

[Gemajames]

Beautiful spinel. I personally am a huge fan of 3 stones, but I like the largest pair best. I feel they show the stone at its brightest and most saturated. Second would be the .46 ct pair. To me the smallest set are not proportionate to the center.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, Gema. I like the step cut nature of the biggest pair.

 

[Siameseroo]

I prefer the .37cts followed by the .46cts. It will look amazing in either a three or five stone ring, I really love the Leon Mege ring you posted! Just make sure you have enough finger real estate for the five stone!

 

[PieAreSquared]

What a terrible dilemma!
The .46 look almost the same (horizontal) dimension as the spinel, are they? With metal, you will be talking nearly 20mm (2 centimeters) wide, that sounds like an awful lot on a size 4 finger. Does it look that wide to you?
I like how the first pair look with the spinel, they accent it nicely without seeming to compete. Just my 2 cents!

 

[PrincessCath]

I think the .46 dwarf the lovely spinel. I'd go with the smaller side stones, esp. with some dainty fingers...

 

[T L]

What a terrible dilemma!
The .46 look almost the same (horizontal) dimension as the spinel, are they? With metal, you will be talking nearly 20mm (2 centimeters) wide, that sounds like an awful lot on a size 4 finger. Does it look that wide to you?
I like how the first pair look with the spinel, they accent it nicely without seeming to compete. Just my 2 cents!

I agree, while you could probably fit the Empire State building on my finger, and have room to boot.

If you want a five stone ring, it may be uncomfortable for your small finger.

 

[pregcurious]

What a terrible dilemma!
The .46 look almost the same (horizontal) dimension as the spinel, are they? With metal, you will be talking nearly 20mm (2 centimeters) wide, that sounds like an awful lot on a size 4 finger. Does it look that wide to you?
I like how the first pair look with the spinel, they accent it nicely without seeming to compete. Just my 2 cents!

They look very similar in width, but I prefer the 0.46 over the 0.37 because they are taller proportionally.

It's almost a coin toss for me between 0.37 and 0.46, but I lean towards the 0.46 because of my husband's 2 cents. It seems that PSers like both pairs, with more liking the 0.37.

Importantly, I think everyone agrees that the 0.83 is too big.

 

[pregcurious]

PrincessCath and TL, good points about my small finger. My left ring finger, which is what I am having this made for is size 4, but my right is closer to size 5. I don't feel comfortable rocking 2 rings (one on each finger) so this will be an anniversary ring alternative to my wedding set.

I will have to ask David what is the projected width of the ring.

 

[dk168]

The second pic in the first post for a 3-stone ring, and the first pic for a 5-stone ring.

Looking forward to see the finished ring as it will be gorgeous.

DK

 

[pregcurious]

The second pic in the first post for a 3-stone ring, and the first pic for a 5-stone ring.

Looking forward to see the finished ring as it will be gorgeous.

DK

Thanks, DK, I feel the same!

 

[dk168]

pregcurious,

Is this the same oval red spinel that used to be your avatar pic?

DK

 

[pregcurious]

Yes, it it is! The spinel is still featured in my avatar, as the middle stone.

 

[ElleK]

I'd go for 5 stone and the .37ctw. Beautiful project!

 

[pregcurious]

I am wowed. David just sent me a picture of step cut traps, and little tapered baguettes for a 5-stone. I am almost speechless about the traps. He is going to look for smaller baguettes.

I love step cut traps!!! Some of you may remember that I originally wanted a deco feel to this ring, and the step cut traps do that.

Gosh, these beautiful diamonds, and the gem box make my poor little spinel look so dark and crappy! Hahaha.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, ElleW. It's good to see you What does TGP stand for?

 

[pregcurious]

Here Kellybell's LM with bullet sides.

 

[pregcurious]

I think this is another ring from Leon Mege, but I am not sure. I found it on PS through Google: