Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Polling Opinions, #1 or #2 from Dimend Scaasi?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
littlemissindecisive

littlemissindecisive

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
70
Hi all I have found two settings I love at Dimend Scassi''''s website, I would like see which one you all like the best! Thanks!



#1
http://www.dimendscaasi.com/build/step1.asp?prodID=1-E7447A




#2
http://www.dimendscaasi.com/build/step1.asp?prodID=1A3-2


Also if anyone knows anything about Dimendscaasi?
 
Personally I prefer the first. Classic, clean and pretty.
 
I vote for 1 as well
9.gif
. I like seeing more diamonds than metal and 2 is channel set so there''s more metal than 1.
 
Thanks for the opinions!!! Heres some more details to consider with the choice--not to make things too complicated...

#2 is actually not channel set per their website it is ''bead-set'' ring, I too like the shared prong of #1, but I would get the wedding band to match and I''m worried about the shared prong rings chewing at each other.

Also to note, my center will probably be on the small side for pricescope (@.80- range) and #1 has 10 diamonds totaling .5 ctws, so those are @.05 point stones correct?
The #2 option has 12 side stones, .3 ctw so i''m assuming those are @.025 points

I want to keep the side stones as accents only and make sure my center RB stays the focus.

Ok enough from me, your opinions please everyone, be blunt, I like the truth!
 
I wouldn''t worry about setting #1 and a matching band chewing each other up; the metal is flush with the diamonds. If you are worried about the center stone being overshadowed by the side diamonds, go with #1; the metal will also add bulk. You can see in my avatar my e-ring, which has side metal, and my wedding ring, which is a u-prong, with less metal.
 
they both have the same heads, but one just has less metal and more scalloped with side profile uniqueness to it, so I''m going to vote #1 as you will see less metal and all you''ll see is lots o'' bling
30.gif
and I don''t think it will over shadow your center at all. The second has more metal showing so that will be something that will be more prominent but that is just my opinion.
 
i prefer the 1st ring!
30.gif
 
I like the first one too! I am a fan of DS as I have purchased from them several times. My avatar is one of my custom made pieces from them. I wrote a testimonial in the testimonial section. I know that someone had a bad experience with them on this forum, but Isaac (the owner) did everything in his power to make things right and it became a situation that he exhausted all his efforts after several months of trying to make the customer happy. I think they both just agreed to an amicable solution and move on?? That said, I think that situation is few and far between as I know he is very easy to work with and he has expert craftsmen that do beautiful work. I think you will be very pleased!
 
I like # 2. It''s a classic Tiffany style.
 
#1 hands down. More elegant and modern looking. More/larger diamonds. Worth the extra money, though I wish the melees were Whiteflash''s ACA type of cut.
 
wow-thanks everyone so far who''s weighed in--so far #1 is the winner, infact no votes for #2 as of yet...

CushionCutNut--I did read that thread about DS so I am happy to hear the opposite and your ring is beyond fantastic...
Do you think they would be willing to send me both settings minus the centers to help me decide? Many people have said this is super helpful.

I was so excited to see these, bc I really want a 6 prong tiffany style head for a RB and have always longed for some simple sidestones(this is my 10 yr annv upgrade that I can''t seem to close the deal!!!

I also like the custom aramis setting from whiteflash I have seen here on pricescope but with a 6 prong tiffany and the Harmony fishtail pave is super pretty...
I have heard wonderful things about whiteflash too, but was afraid to do complete "custom" and not be happy once getting it on my finger.

Thanks again and I''ll take all the help I can get!
35.gif
 
I like #1 also. My FI looked extensively at DS and had nothing but great things to say about them, but ultimately he found my cushion elsewhere.

#2 shows too much metal for my preference (but that''s just me!). If you''re worried about the side stones being too large in proportion to the center (which I do not think will be the case btw), perhaps you could find a similar style at DS (or custom with them) with smaller sidestones, maybe 3 or 4 pointers?
 
I prefer the first one. It seems to me to make the center diamond pop more. Good luck!
 
I love #1!
 
OK--so that''s 10:1 vote in favor of #1, thats just the oomph I needed, thank-you everyone who took time to peak.

I might call DS and see if they would be willing to send out just the bands to me bc nothing is like seeing it on your finger as we all know...

I will keep you posted!
35.gif
 
Another vote for #1. It''s a more current style.
 
#1 is more attractive IMO. I think it will look great with a .8 rb.
 
#1
 
Hands down number 2.
 
wow-thanks guys!!! I love getting feedback as everyone here does! # 1 takes the cake or cupcake for me!

ok so heres a little twist on things...to make it interesting, I would love to hear these opinions, again be brutally honest--I can take it and need it.

I have a quote from Whiteflash on the aramis setting which was my first find, which is pretty much # 1 from Dimend Scaasi which I found yesterday... I was going to have them make it with a 6 prong tiffany head and .035 aca melee-12-14 total and the band would be @2.2-2.3mm and the quote is pretty much the same if I recall, under 100 dollars difference...
SO
Would you go with Whiteflash to make this with the smaller .035 aca and a H&A ACA- RB @.8 from Whiteflash ---OR go with Dimend Scaasi and either keep the .05 stones or maybe customize it with a bit smaller so that my center stone pops? I want my band to stay @2.2-2.4 mm range.

I keep hearing fab reviews about Whiteflash''s diamonds
Ahhh, help a girl out!!!
 
Tatator--I would love to hear you expand your thoughts, my close girlfriend whom I value her opinion highly loves #2 also....
 
1st one is my favorite!
 
I like the first one best. I would actually like the 2nd one more if it were an actual channel set and not a bead set that looks kind of like a channel set. Those look "cheap" to me.

I don''t know which I would pick out of your last post honestly. I admit I have issues buying settings sight unseen, but I have very small & short fingers so a lot of settings dwarf my hand. Not just width, but the height of some rings look chunky on my hand.
 
I like #1 the best over all, but I really like the head of #2...
 
#1 is my choice
1.gif
 
Date: 10/29/2009 8:57:20 PM
Author: Luckyeshe
I vote for 1 as well
9.gif
. I like seeing more diamonds than metal and 2 is channel set so there''s more metal than 1.
Click to expand...

thats not right
#2 is bead set (or pave set)

i like #2
looks exactly like the tiffany bead set =)
 
Love #2! The side stone prongs on the first look scratchy to me, I love the sleek smoothness of the second.
 
Yep Mark is right, #2 is an exact replica of the Tiffany bead set ring, measures 2.7mm wide with .30ctw so @.025 each I think..(6 per side)

I actually didn''t know this was an exact replica, I thought it was just the tiffany 6 prong head...I looked back and saw you were looking for the same tiffany replica as #2 correct?

#1 is @2.3mm wide with .05 melee. I actually like the smaller stones to go with @.8 RB center...
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top