Princess Cut Micropaves?

[LoveLeigh]

I''ve been doing a lot of searching.. and I haven''t been able to find a micro pave ring designed with princess cut diamonds instead of round diamonds. Are square paves non existent? If not, then can someone show me a ring with the princess cut micropave diamonds? Thanks!

 

[Kaleigh]

if I''m not mistaken Ritani makes a micro pave for a princes cut. Pearlman''s is a PS vendor and carries the Ritani line. Check out his site.

 

[kohdy]

http://shop.baileybanksandbiddle.com/largeImage/index.jsp?PID=2090529

Check this out from Ritani''s endless love collection. This is the new setting I am getting with my princess stone. My ring is estimated to be done next week. I will share some photos then.

 

[LoveLeigh]

I think that I might have misworded my post.

Oops...

What I want to find is a ring with a pave setting made of tiny square diamonds instead of tiny round diamonds... Regardless of the shape of the central stone. Does that make more sense?

I''m sorry, I guess I''m just not familiar enough with diamond terminology.

Thanks... again.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 4/15/2007 12:36:06 AM
Author: LoveLeigh
I think that I might have misworded my post.

Oops...

What I want to find is a ring with a pave setting made of tiny square diamonds instead of tiny round diamonds... Regardless of the shape of the central stone. Does that make more sense?

I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not familiar enough with diamond terminology.

Thanks... again.

I'll give you a few sites to check out:

www.thefacetscollection.com

www.jamesallen.com

www.whiteflash.com

And of course you can always go the custom route.... Good luck!!!

 

[kohdy]

Date: 4/15/2007 12:36:06 AM
Author: LoveLeigh
I think that I might have misworded my post.

Oops...

What I want to find is a ring with a pave setting made of tiny square diamonds instead of tiny round diamonds... Regardless of the shape of the central stone. Does that make more sense?

I''m sorry, I guess I''m just not familiar enough with diamond terminology.

Thanks... again.

Now I see what you mean. I don''t recall seeing any micropave setting with square melees but if I do come across any, I will definitely let you know.

I wonder if you can make a cusom setting like that? Hmm....

 

[LoveLeigh]

You''re right. I thought I might have to go the custom route, but I was really hoping to see an example of what it would look like before I made that decision.

This is the best I could find...

http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Diamond-Settings/Channel-Set-with-Princess-Diamonds_992.htm#

It''s still a far cry from what I had in mind, but if you squint and imagine it A LOT smaller... like 2 mm wide..

.......

 

[kcoursolle]

knoxjewelers.biz has a pave ring that can accomodate any diamond shape. I think it''s called "petite pave" or something along those lines.

 

[Miranda]

It''s so funny you should post this. I was going to post a similar thread myself. I have some channel set princess cut earrings that I never wear and I was thinking of setting them in a pave (bead set) eternity band or ring....But, I can''t find anything like that. I didn''t know if it was not possible with the cut or the corners. I''m on the hunt too and if I find something I''ll let you know. I was thinking about emailing Whiteflash for a quote and checking with some local custom jewelers in my area.

 

[LoveLeigh]

I went to Knox Jewelers and found the Petite Pave rings... They''re the width that I wanted to find (Very Pretty) but they''re still made with round diamonds.

Miranda,

I knew I couldn''t be the only one!

I was wondering the same thing, whether it was possible to do a pave with square shaped diamonds.
Another thing I was wondering was whether there was a particular reason pave rings are only done with round diamonds... i.e. sparkle?

The reason I want to find the square pave so badly is because I want a square radiant center stone and I just had the idea that it would look better with it than a round pave...

Anyways, Thanks so much! I''m off to do some more searching too.

I mean, we can''t be the first people to want this, right?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 4/15/2007 4:17:45 PM
Author: LoveLeigh
I went to Knox Jewelers and found the Petite Pave rings... They''re the width that I wanted to find (Very Pretty) but they''re still made with round diamonds.


Miranda,


I knew I couldn''t be the only one!

I was wondering the same thing, whether it was possible to do a pave with square shaped diamonds.

Another thing I was wondering was whether there was a particular reason pave rings are only done with round diamonds... i.e. sparkle?


The reason I want to find the square pave so badly is because I want a square radiant center stone and I just had the idea that it would look better with it than a round pave...


Anyways, Thanks so much! I''m off to do some more searching too.


I mean, we can''t be the first people to want this, right?

Round stones DO have the most sparkle of all, so I would say that might be a factor. If I had to guess I would also say that the corners that square diamonds have would make it much more difficult to "bead set" the pave without it getting caught if that makes sense. If you really want square diamonds you might have to go with a channel setting...but I''m not sure.

Depending on the size of the pave, you can''t even tell that they are rounds. I have a rectangular cushion center and my pave is 3/4 pt stones and you couldn''t tell they were round unless you put it right up to your face and even then you wouldn''t be sure. Just FYI...

 

[LoveLeigh]

Oh okay,
Thanks for the explanation Neatfreak. I guess what I''m looking for is a very small channel setting.
Although I love sparkles (who doesn''t?), the reason I like the square diamonds is because there aren''t any gaps around them when they are lined up next to each other like with round diamonds.

I did take your advice and I searched for the smallest channel settings I could and 2 mm was the smallest I could find...

http://www.bluenile.com/product_details.asp?oid=4783

http://www.krikawa.com/rings/unique-wedding-rings/unique-wedding-rings.htm

In that second link, it is the sixth ring down. It''s the smallest one.. 2mm

It''s just good to know that it can be done....

Although ideally, I''d love to be able to do a setting that is only 1 mm wide so that along with the wedding band, it would be around 2mm...

Would that even be possible?

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 4/15/2007 6:31:19 PM
Author: LoveLeigh
Oh okay,
Thanks for the explanation Neatfreak. I guess what I''m looking for is a very small channel setting.
Although I love sparkles (who doesn''t?), the reason I like the square diamonds is because there aren''t any gaps around them when they are lined up next to each other like with round diamonds.

I did take your advice and I searched for the smallest channel settings I could and 2 mm was the smallest I could find...

http://www.bluenile.com/product_details.asp?oid=4783

http://www.krikawa.com/rings/unique-wedding-rings/unique-wedding-rings.htm

In that second link, it is the sixth ring down. It''s the smallest one.. 2mm

It''s just good to know that it can be done....

Although ideally, I''d love to be able to do a setting that is only 1 mm wide so that along with the wedding band, it would be around 2mm...

Would that even be possible?

Most jewelers advise against a setting that is 1 mm wide, durability issues, etc...

 

[blingergrrrl]

What about invisible set princess stones? They can do really neat things with invisble settings...and no prongs!!!

ETA: This ring has BOTH invisible set princess melee and bead set round melee!

 

[LoveLeigh]

Hmm Kaleigh,
That''s what I was afraid of.
Do you know whether it would be durable enough in a stronger metal? Like maybe titanium?
Is that strange? I dunno, I''m under the impression that it is stronger than platinum. I could very well be wrong.

On that note, if titanium is indeed stronger than platinum, what do you or anyone think of titanium rings?
Thanks so much.


Blingergrrrl,
Thanks for the sample pic.. I can see the princess cut diamonds, but I''m still not sure what the exact meaning of "invisible set" is.. Could you explain? Thanks!

 

[neatfreak]

LoveLeigh,

1. Don''t do an invisible set for an engagement ring! It is NOT strong enough to withstand daily wear and if you lose 1 stone you will lose them all because most settings like this basically the stones are just pressure set into the ring, so if you lose one, the pressure is off of all of them and you lose them. Think of it as if you had a square box and put a bunch of blocks into the box so they fit perfectly and you could lift the box without them falling out. Now take out one of the blocks and the other are no longer held in by the pressure. THAT is what an invisible set is, and it is not recommended for something as important and worn as frequently as an ering.

2. Most jewelers won''t go below 2mm for a band. The ONE company that I know of that will go below that is Ritani. I just got one of their rings and they are very strong, but are also a bit higher height wise to make them sturdy enough to be less than 2mm wide. My pave is 3/4 pt. stones and very teensy. I have seen my exact setting (HERE is a link to the setting with a princess diamond.

3. Titanium cannot have diamonds set in the same way platinum can and most jewelers who will set diamonds w/ titanium can only do it in a very limited fashion. It is my understanding that you could never have a setting like you want in ti because the metal is so hard it just can''t be manipulated like platinum or gold can. It''s worth checking because I might be wrong. But since they''re not really on the market I assume that it''s not a good idea or else it would have been picked up already.

4. You say that you like the square stones because there "aren''t any gaps". With pave there will ALWAYS be gaps (of metal) regardless of what shape stone was used. If you look at pave closely it is very different from a channel setting. If you want nothing between the diamonds you need to get a channel, not pave.

I hope that helps!

 

[blingergrrrl]

Short answer:
"The invisible setting technique was developed in France more than two centuries ago. Grooves in each stone''s girdle slip into a metal framework below the surface, but the metal cannot be seen, so stones sit side-by-side, creating a solid surface of gems."

Here''s a more detailed link with a pic of how the set the stones:
http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/nenam/ajm-invisible-setting-lesson.htm

 

[blingergrrrl]

Date: 4/15/2007 7:47:17 PM
Author: neatfreak
LoveLeigh,

1. Don''t do an invisible set for an engagement ring! It is NOT strong enough to withstand daily wear and if you lose 1 stone you will lose them all because most settings like this basically the stones are just pressure set into the ring, so if you lose one, the pressure is off of all of them and you lose them. Think of it as if you had a square box and put a bunch of blocks into the box so they fit perfectly and you could lift the box without them falling out. Now take out one of the blocks and the other are no longer held in by the pressure. THAT is what an invisible set is, and it is not recommended for something as important and worn as frequently as an ering.

I wasn''t aware of this! Disregard my suggestion!!

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 4/15/2007 7:47:17 PM
Author: neatfreak

2. Most jewelers won''t go below 2mm for a band. The ONE company that I know of that will go below that is Ritani. I just got one of their rings and they are very strong, but are also a bit higher height wise to make them sturdy enough to be less than 2mm wide. My pave is 3/4 pt. stones and very teensy. I have seen my exact setting (HERE is a link to the setting with a princess diamond.

FYI, Leon goes below 2mm for plain solitaires-- the one he is making for me will probably end up around 1.7-1.8, and he assured me there would be no durability problems... but with pave I think 2mm is probably a better estimate of minimum thickness.

 

[Kaleigh]

1mm is really stretching it. There have been threads on this, wish I could link you. Not sure about titanium. Haven''t had experience with it myself. You could go just under 2mm as a compromise, 1.7 mm etc...

 

[LoveLeigh]

Neatfreak, you''re explanations are really thorough and helpful. Thank you so much!!
I feel like I have a much better grasp on things now.

Boston Jeff, who is Leon? I''m located in Dallas, TX so if he is a jeweler in your area, that wouldn''t work out for me. I''d definitely want to work with someone local, face to face, and not any other way. I just have this horrifying image of getting a ring that isn''t EXACTLY what I wanted... yikes.

Blingergrrl, are you sure you weren''t wanting me to lose all my diamonds? tsk tsk

Kaleigh you''re probably right. I''ll just have to find someone that would be able to do it for under 2mm.

Once again, thanks so much everyone. This is seriously the most helpful site I have found anywhere!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 4/16/2007 1:01:16 PM
Author: LoveLeigh
Neatfreak, you're explanations are really thorough and helpful. Thank you so much!!

I feel like I have a much better grasp on things now.


Boston Jeff, who is Leon? I'm located in Dallas, TX so if he is a jeweler in your area, that wouldn't work out for me. I'd definitely want to work with someone local, face to face, and not any other way. I just have this horrifying image of getting a ring that isn't EXACTLY what I wanted... yikes.


Blingergrrl, are you sure you weren't wanting me to lose all my diamonds? tsk tsk

Kaleigh you're probably right. I'll just have to find someone that would be able to do it for under 2mm.


Once again, thanks so much everyone. This is seriously the most helpful site I have found anywhere!

Glad to help! Just make sure if you work with a local jeweler you ask to see examples of their work beforehand, especially of something so thin. Leon Mege is who Jeff is referring to and he is in NYC. He has an excellent reputation and he and Mark Morrell (out of MA) are two craftsman's opinions I would trust. But since NO reputable PS jewelers will go below 1.7ish mm, I really really strongly suggest that you stick with somewhere near 2mm. Have you seen what a 2mm band looks like in person? It's already super super thin.

 

[Sparkles22]

Date: 4/16/2007 1:01:16 PM
Author: LoveLeigh
Neatfreak, you''re explanations are really thorough and helpful. Thank you so much!!
I feel like I have a much better grasp on things now.

Boston Jeff, who is Leon? I''m located in Dallas, TX so if he is a jeweler in your area, that wouldn''t work out for me. I''d definitely want to work with someone local, face to face, and not any other way. I just have this horrifying image of getting a ring that isn''t EXACTLY what I wanted... yikes.

Blingergrrl, are you sure you weren''t wanting me to lose all my diamonds? tsk tsk

Kaleigh you''re probably right. I''ll just have to find someone that would be able to do it for under 2mm.

Once again, thanks so much everyone. This is seriously the most helpful site I have found anywhere!

Well let me know what you find out! I was interested in "getting the thinnest bands I could with princess cut diamonds"... This is what I found:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/together-forever-or-not-soldering.59956/

they are both 2.7mm

Thanks

!

 

[FireGoddess]

My rings are about 1.8 mm each, and my jeweler said there was absolutely no way they would go thinner. Even if you use a stronger metal, that metal is still compromised by having grooves in it for the diamonds to sit.

 

[blingergrrrl]

I always wondered how small they could make channel set rings...Didn''t someone on here have toe rings that were channel set and REALLY tiny?

 

[FireGoddess]

Those were Mara's toe rings from WF. (And they are 2mm each)

 

[FireGoddess]

Here''s the link to her toe ring thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/guess-what-i-got-with-my-ps-10k-gift.32353/