Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Princess with trillions?

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

Midnight00

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
37
Does anybody have a princess center stone with trillions on either side? I love my ring, but I am always thinking about what I may like to do down the road. My camera isn''t very good, so I attached pictures from Blue Nile that look like my engagement and wedding rings. My princess is 1.8 center stone with .2 baguettes on either side. My band is 5 princess stone diamonds, 1.25 ctw. Both set in platinum. Thanks!!!

CO Princess ring.jpg
 
Similar to my band.

CO Princess ringA.jpg
 
I was just asking this question in the Rockytalky boards.....
I am interested in a princess with tillions too, but a few other posters have told me they have it, and are not very happy with it, becuz the trillions are pretty lifeless. Its difficult to get sparkle from trillions.....if you want to go to that thread, its titled "Trillions, are yours lifeless?"

I;m still hoping to get more opionions and pics from people.
 
Thanks for the info. I hadn''t hear about trillions being lifeless. Good to know. I initially wanted a three stone ring with all princess cut diamonds, but I decided on the baguettes. Baguettes don''t really offer that much bling either!!

I think that no matter what I have, I always see something else that I want!!!!


i love diamonds.... :)
 
ok, something else I heard from a few people......

is that when you have a princess in the middle and a trillion on each side.....that sometimes it all just blends together...and kind of looks like a MQ turned on its side....which , I do not care for MQ's at all....so I would not want that to happen.

anyone have a ring like this, or seen one and felt like that???

midnight and I would appreciate your thoughts!
thanks
 
Like I have said before, I don''t really like trillions. Not only are they lifeless, but they almost have a cloudy effect, unlike baguettes...which I love (they are glassy and sophisticated). To address your second issue about them blending in with the princess, you just have to be sure that they are shorter in width so that they "stand out" and do not blend in. My trillions were too big and the whole setting just blended in. My round center had only four prongs, so it kind of looked square-shaped and the trillions were the same width (North/South, or knuckle to knuckle). You definitely have to look at trillion sidestones in person to see for yourself. Go check them out sometime. Maybe you''ll like them, maybe you won''t, but if you don''t then you don''t need to think about it anymore.
emwink.gif
 
Here is an example of a round with trillion sidestones. See what I mean? They just have a different look to them. Her sidestones are quite small, and I think they still "blend in" with her huge round center stone. It''s just a personal preference, whether you like that look or not. Some people just like a lot of bling.

Headlighttrillions.jpg
 
thanks for the pic Singer.....yeah, when I tilt my head to the left, it totally just looks like a MQ!!!
not the look I''m going for really.

thanks!
 
Midnight,,,,I actually love your ring with the baguettes.....
is it comfortable??? Its looks like the sides kind of come outward......was wondering if it rubbed against your other fingers. how does your princess cut band look under it?
 
The photo Singer posted is my ring.
This has come up on a previous thread where Singer said she did not like the ring she once had w/ trills and changed it.
To ascertain whether one would like a princess w/ trills, it makes no sense to view a round w/ trills because it is a totally different look.
I am not sure why Singer stated that my trills were small, as they would have to have a fairly good size mm measurement to take up the majority of the side of the center stone which is 9.59 mm (3.29 ct round). Yes, the size, along with how they were set does provide a seamless look, or as Singer termed it "blend in"; for my ring, which was custom, this was done purposefully.
I wanted a ring where all the stones were set low and all on the same plane. I did not want a ring where the center stone stood signifcantly above the side stones. I realize that most of the ladies on the forum would prefer their rings to have center stones as the "star" of the ring, as is the case in the quintessential engagement ring.
For me, I''ve been married almost 17 years and do not particularly want the engagement ring look, but rather I wanted the look more along the lines of a jeweled band. Since getting engaged in 1989, I have had three different center stones and 5 mountings (yes, my husband has put up with a lot and been an absolute angel!) -- so I''ve tried out many looks and this low set, seamless/flush, one ring (not an e-ring w/ separate band), "banded" look is what I''m most comfortable with after much trial and error. It clearly would not be something I think I would have chosen upon getting engaged as a first-time bride, so what I''m "into" is most likely in the minority on this forum.
However, you should know that trills w/ a princess (straight-edged stone) will not "blend in" like a round does with the trills. You can really make the side-stones be quite definitive from the center stone when you use a straight-edged stone, like a princess -- just get trills that are smaller mm in size (length).
As I stated in the previous thread, this photo is horrible and not the least representational of what the ring looks like in real life. From that photo, I truly think it is the ugliest ring I have ever laid my eyes on! If someone showed me that photo, I would say they couldn''t pay me to wear that ring! However, in person it is a completely different story. I am told all the time how beautiful my ring is, completely unsolicited. As a matter of fact, I have received PMs from Psers telling me how much they love my ring, and where did I get it made, etc. So, apparently not everyone thinks it is unattractive -- and that is just based on that really ugly photo!
The point is, the photo should not be your determining factor as to whether trills are the direction for you. You really need to look at some rings in person, in real life, and not from photos that were taken from a crappy camera, then downloaded and adjusted to be the right size file, and then through a monitor -- also, you need to see trills with the same type of center stone that you have.
I found it interesting that Singer stated that trills were lifeless, yet then she said that "Some people just like a lot of bling". If they were lifeless, how could they provide the bling???
Actually, my trills are not lifeless at all. Yes, they do provide a different type of "sparkle" than my round does, by virture of the fact that their faceting pattern is different. That is what we liked about it. It gives it a "twinkling" effect (as in "twinkle twinkle little star"!), so while it adds to the "bling" and definitely is not "lifeless", it is a more subtle effect than the round''s sparkle and this acts as the designation in providing the visual determination/segregation between the center stone and the side stones, despite the stones being set so flush.
As for your marquise comment, I can assure you that no one has mistaken my ring, in person, for an east-west marquise -- I actually received a marquise as my first e-ring (welcome to the world of the brides of the ''80s!!!) so I am familiar w/ the look.
For this particular center stone, when I went to create the three-stone ring, I debated between using baguettes/bullets, pears, rounds, or the trills. I formerly had a smaller round stone (1.51 ct) flanked by baguettes which was, of course, classic and elegant, but it wasn''t "enough" on my finger -- it "felt" like an e-ring and needed a diamond band to go with it (which I had, all baguettes set vertical, not east-west) and then it felt "substantial" on the finger. I didn''t go w/ rounds because I had that same 1.51 round re-set as a three-stone flanked by rounds and so I wanted to go with something different this time, and also it seemed like EVERYONE was doing the three-stone round by that point, so I was tired of seeing "my ring" on every TV commercial and every magazine ad. The issue w/ the pears, which I also almost used on the 1.51 instead of the rounds was that I only like the look if the pears are more "fat" and squatty, so you have a lot of pear near the center stone -- I am not drawn to the look of a round w/ pears if the pears are more elongated.
And that is how I ended up with the trills -- they gave enough spread on the finger to not have me feel like I needed a band to go with it to feel like "enough", and I liked its "twinkling" effect of the facets in contrast to the round''s sparkle.
So, whether or not a look is for you, I think people should use a little more discretion in their choice of words when making criticisms of other PS members rings. It is a whole lot more tactful to say that a particular characteristic of a setting "isn''t something they are drawn to" rather than blatantly criticize a fellow PSers ring. That is very insulting and very hurtful.
 
headlight: your ring is gorgeous!!!!

I doubt that my husband would let me change my ring right now. I am not sure if I really want to do anything to it right now anyway (since I have been married less than 6 months). You''re right that I should go look at them in person.


My two downfalls: diamonds and coach purses!!!
 
jetmal: thanks for the compliment. My ring looks like the ring from Blue Nile picture; it is not my actual ring. My baguettes taper a bit more and don''t stick out at all. It is very comfortable on my hand. My wedding band has 5 stones, so my fingers don''t rub against the diamonds or prongs. Super comfy!!
 
I have never seen one in person, but I love the look of a Princess with side trills... I have never been a fan of baguettes. I hope you do it.

30.gif
 
headlight,

thank you for your insight! It was not my intention to offend you by stating that I do not like Mq''s.(which is what I believe I said...not that I didnt like your ring specifically) If I did hurt you, I appoligize. Sometimes one can not tell the tone of voice or sentiment thru an email. I do think your ring is lovely, and I would die to have a center stone like that.

Thats the thing, see I have been married 10 yrs, and have had a round center and I''ve been itching to change to a princess for the last few yrs......the problem is I love everyones ring on this forum! Even if its not a princess cut, I still think they are ALL unique and beautful. I am also struggling with , do I get a set again, a three stone, or a thicker band, like a unity...etc...
so I do appreciate hearing your prespective on that.

I have been searching ( as poster Midnight has also) for some more people with trilliant side stones to post their feelings and pics ....so we could see a vareity of sizes and placement for these side stones, to try and get some more ideas.

thank you for sharing all your past experiences with the different types of rings and stones.
thats the kind of stuff I was looking for!
 
You definitely have to look at trillion sidestones in person to see for yourself. Go check them out sometime. Maybe you''ll like them, maybe you won''t, but if you don''t then you don''t need to think about it anymore.

See what I mean? They just have a different look to them. Her sidestones are quite small, and I think they still "blend in" with her huge round center stone. It''s just a personal preference, whether you like that look or not. Some people just like a lot of bling.
Headlight,
First of all, I am sorry if you were offended. Your ring is beautful...I just don''t like trillions, and I am not going to say I do just because someone on this site happens to have trillions. I used your ring as an example of how they can blend in with the center stone. Your trillions are not small (however, I do not know the specs)...maybe that hurt your ego, as I know many people like "BIG" diamonds on this site. I am not one of those people. Anyway, I meant that your trillions were small in comparison to your center stone. I was trying to infer that a person needs to get much smaller trillions in comparison with their center stone if she wants the center stone to be the main attraction. I do not think I "BLANTANTLY CRITICIZED" your ring in any way. If you look at my quote from above, you will see this. I said it has a "different look", I did not say it looked bad or ugly. I also said that it is "a personal preference, whether you like that look or not." Obviously, you know my preference, but I did not, in any way, shape or form, insult your ring. When I said some people just like a lot of bling, I meant that some people don''t mind if the center stone does not stand out, they just like a lot of diamond spanning across the width of their finger. I do not feel I should have to explain every little thing I say into a long, drawn-out explanation...I do not have the time for things like that. Your response was very long, and I can tell you are hurt, but believe me, that was not my intention. I never even once said that I disliked your ring...you are reading into things way too much in my opinion. I told midnight to look at some herself. I said, "Maybe you''ll like them, maybe you won''t." I was just giving my opinion, advice, and forewarning of what trillions typically look like, and she can decide for herself. I have not had three diamonds and five mountings, but I have a lot of experience with diamonds and jewelry in general...believe me, I would be a jeweler if I wasn''t already a teacher. It is my new passion! Sorry again for offending you, but that was not my intention by any means. Believe me, I would proudly wear a ring like yours if it was given to me, it just wouldn''t be my first choice. I am not one to "sugar-coat" things just to boost people''s egos, but I am also not one to purposely hurt someone''s feelings. Your ring was a simple "example" of how trillions have a different sparkle and how then do tend to blend in with center stones because of the width to length ratio. That is all. (BTW, I really love your center stone...it is gorgeous!...You are a lucky lady!)
 
Jetmail, thank you for responding. You did not insult me in regards to the marquise comment; I know most people these days don''t care for that shape, although it is making a small resurgence mainly in the antique ring genre, and I was trying to assure you that it doesn''t look that way in person -- especially if you are considering a princess with trills, I do not feel it will appear as a marquise on the side view. I''ve obviously struggled with different looks, myself! Actually, I know I really want to get a different shaped center stone next time around, too!

Singer, you did not "insult" my ego about the size of the trills -- that wasn''t my point on my comment on the size. I just was trying to say that I think they are actually pretty large and that largely plays into why the ring is one flash of bling, rather than being able to more ably distinguish between the center stone and the accent stones; hence if someone doesn''t care for a look where all the stones blend together, they should go for smaller trills. My jeweler actually wanted to make the trills LARGER, and my husband and I said no. I think that they couldn''ve gone smaller than they did, and it would''ve looked really good. I really appreciate your reading and replying to my post
face1.gif
Thank you!
 
I tried on the Tacori mermaid ring...the one that has princess cut center, and a trilliant on each side....I LOVED it! the trillants were a good size, so the center stone still popped out at ya, and the trillants had plenty of sparkle to me ( not sure on the specs, G color I believe).

now my only problem is that I love two different settings, and cant make up my mind which one to get
20.gif
 
I''m so glad you had a chance to see the trills in person and that you liked it. That particular ring is one of my favorite Tacori styles!
 
Date: 2/20/2006 2:58:43 PM
Author: jetmal
I tried on the Tacori mermaid ring...the one that has princess cut center, and a trilliant on each side....I LOVED it! the trillants were a good size, so the center stone still popped out at ya, and the trillants had plenty of sparkle to me ( not sure on the specs, G color I believe).


now my only problem is that I love two different settings, and cant make up my mind which one to get
20.gif
Click to expand...

I really, really think you need to see anything in person to know if you like it. I am so glad you did. I obviously have a soft spot for Tacoris.

Headlight- I think you ring is amazingly beautiful. I love the combination.
 
Midnight, I think a PC with trillions on the sides would be lovely, but I would definitely suggest you see it for yourself before making a decision.

Also, if you are looking for a different spin on traditional baguettes, also look at bullets. I have a RB with bullets and absolutely love love love the look. They just have a little something extra compared to tapered baguettes. Of course, I love tapered baguettes too! LOL

Ooooh, and how about some pics of your wedding set?!
31.gif
 
how about traps?
31.gif


zinger11.JPG


woody444.JPG
 
rascal49: what are bullets?

The traps are pretty.... too many options. I''m just browsing now anyway. Thanks for all the help!!
 
Tacori -- thank you!
Sevens One -- Your ring is so amazing. I absolutely love the traps!
 
I love rounds with trills (headlight I have coveted your ring for a very long time, it''s gorgeous!). My sister has a radiant/trillion ring (2.7 carat radiant with .75 each trillion sides) and it is just breathtaking! Hers has the seamless look like headlights and it certainly catches your eye. I can''t tell you how many times I''ve been with her when people have commented on how beautiful her ring is.
 
Date: 2/19/2006 8:13:44 PM
Author: headlight
From that photo, I truly think it is the ugliest ring I have ever laid my eyes on! If someone showed me that photo, I would say they couldn't pay me to wear that ring!
Click to expand...
23.gif


Headlight, your ring is BEAUTIFUL!

It wasn't cool of singer to use your photo and then critique it, she should have used her own photo or a photo from a website.
 
Caribou,
You''re right, I shouldn''t have used her ring as an example. I am still learning, and I will remember this next time I want to share my thoughts.
7.gif
 
Are bullets those stones that come to a point at the bottom? Kinda looking like a shield or something? Wish I could draw a picture....

Found it... This is what I''m thinking of:

bul3.JPG
 
Date: 2/20/2006 9:16:58 PM
Author: Midnight00
rascal49: what are bullets?
Click to expand...
They are the last set of sidestones in this pic: (these are tapered)

Sidestone Examples 3a.jpg
 
Here are tapered bullets (step cut) with a RB:

New Ring PICT0400ab.jpg
 
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