Question about custom diamond e-ring setting

[MissAva]

What does everyone think the thinnest (most delicate looking) diamond band setting is? I like this one except I am not overly sure about the prong design. Would it be more simple to get it custom made? Also has anyone had a custom made e-ring in which the band of the ring was 1.8mm or less? Did you like it, any regrets? Is there a custom place that does solid work in that width? Thanks ya''ll.

 

[appletini]

I''ve tried on the ritani endless love without halo and w-band. They are super tiny and delicate...I think 1.5-1.8mm. I love the look, but since I''m going custom...I''ll have to settle for 2mm. One jeweler told me that Ritani got lots of complaints about his rings being too tiny, so he has tried to "beef" them up a little.

 

[belle]

most jewelers will not make a band that small. you reach a point when the integrity of the band is compromised. have you seen this size band in person? if not, go have a look and try them on. i am certainly a fan of dainty and delecate, but i''ve found that there is such a thing as ''too small''.

 

[lovelylulu]

I like the setting a lot. I prefer when the pave stones aren''t in a channel setting like the one that you are showing. Can someone explain a little more about when small is too small. i am really drawn to a delicate band.

 

[Orange]

The shank of my ring by Leon Mege is 1.8mm and I love how delicate it looks. At first I asked for 1.5mm, but he convinced me to go up a little, and I''m glad I listened.

 

[MissAva]

Okay I know this is somewhat of a tacky question but...do ya''ll think it would be more or less expensive to have the ring custom made?

 

[lovelylulu]

Orange,

why are you glad you opted for a bit larger band, is the larger size more durable? looks more sparkly?

 

[MissAva]

Orange, about how long did it take once you knew what you wanted?

 

[lmurden]

Who makes that wedding set?

 

[MissAva]

Micheal B, the ering is 2600 or it was in Rochester NY, I think Soloman Brothers carries is for 2800. I cant remember how much the band that matches it was.

 

[appletini]

I wouldn''t get the exact ring custom made, but if there were modifications you wanted then it would be better to go the custom route. I love the ritani endless love w/o halo, but I want double claw prongs, so I would have to go custom. Plus now I like too many rings, and would want to fuse them all together to have all of my favorite elements.

Also the ritani pave is channel set, so I wonder if that''s the secret to getting the band so thin?

 

[MissAva]

I like the ring, but the prongs are sqaurish and not to my taste. I also think that I would like tiny prongs hold the stone in, but with that same general look. I really like the idea of an uber thin band, but I can seem to find any other pictures of a solitaire with a thin (less then 2 mm) band and no halo...perhaps I am looking in the wrong places.

 

[Orange]

I think my ring took 6 or 7 weeks, and it was substantially cheaper than a Michael B. In fact, yesterday I went to Michael C Fina to compare mine with the Michael B rings, and I have to say that I really like my pave better-- Michael B''s have smaller melee and more metal.

I''m glad I went with the 1.8 over the 1.5 because on my hand, I think 1.5 would have been too thin. The 1.8 looks incredibly delicate as it is, and the melee is noticeably sparkly.

 

[lovelylulu]

orange,

is your ring channel set? also what would be the term for the pave in the picture of the posted ring?

 

[Mara]

expensiveness has to do with what you are creating. we liked the MB settings but did my custom setting with more platinum, almost double the ctw in the eternity setting and paid $400-500 less for the e-ring than the MB.

agreed what someone else said re: compromising the integrity of the settings when you start to get too thin on the metal. think diamond security in the small melee. if there is not enough metal to support all the small stones, they could fall out or be damaged or even worse, the setting could bend with not too much pressure (aka if you grabbed something in a life/death situation, my jeweler had this happen) and the setting would be damaged and it could cause stone loss.

my jeweler had this happen with a gal who was a pilot and her plane was going down, she pulled up on the steering so hard that her ring bent to her finger and all her small stones popped out. he remade the ring for her with more metal the next time around.

so this was something we seriously considered when making our rings, esp since i am a bit on the clumsy side and did not want to worry about wearing my rings in all situations. sure it added a bit of width but i prefer them that way.

i will say that my w-ring is 2.3mm with 2 pointers and my e-ring is about 2.6mm with 3 pointers, i prefer the look of the 2mm if you like a thinner band...WF would not make my ring with any width less than 2.3 since it''s not shared prong, it''s individual prong which is also safer.

so if i had to do it over again i would probably get my e-ring with 2 pointers and not 3 and have them both be that thinner 2.3mm width and i''d probably still stick with the individual prong, even though i ADORE the pave looks, they just may not be for me over the long term.

 

[MissAva]

Se now that is the ring, I love the shard prong look it just lloks smoother to me. I adore the DeNatale setting but again I just dont want to spend that portion of my budget on it. I would rather have a bigger stone. I really like thinner bands though and I havent seen any thin plain one that dont taper towards the stone which I dont care for. Does anyone know who made FireGoddes ring? Or wide her band is?