Resetting recently set diamond - need opinions

[MarionC]

I think I've finally decided on a solution to my setting dilemma. After I set my ACA I loved the setting, but it just wasn't my style. I then looked at so many different settings - Simon G, Ritani, Bev K - but could not decide on just one style and now have gotten really bogged down.
It disturbed me to think that I could pick out a setting, love it, and then want something different almost right away. Two days after I got the setting I tried to return it and was not able to. This makes getting something "fancy" a bit intimidating.

I finally realized the past few days that something simple will be best.

Here's the setting I found over the weekend from JA shown with a 1ct [my diamond is 0.89ct]:

The diamonds are 3mm each.

Here is my stone -[with current setting "erased"]- and my Mom's wedding band with 3mm stones to show the size relation, and below that the rings I would wear with the setting.

Today I ordered this setting, but have not sent my ring in yet. So what do you think?
Are the side diamonds the correct proportion for my center stone?
I also considered a plain shank, but the idea of some uncomplicated extra sparkle is appealing
and with JA I have 2 months to "test drive" the setting.

This feels like the right thing to do, but I did want to show everyone what I'm up before sending the stone out in case there is some pertinent feedback.

 

[mrs-b]

Hi Jimmianne

I think I'm having problems keeping up with what you do and don't have. Do you still have any .6ct rb's? And - you also have a marquise set with trillain sides and your mothers large RB from Tiffany, yes? Did you proceed with buying an asscher? I'm trying to work out exactly what's in your jewel box before casting an opinion.

I have to say, I'm not a fan of your .89 with the setting of 3 pointers along the band. While I like the setting in general, I think it overwhelms that totally GORGEOUS band you're wearing with it in the last photo you posted - and given how original and beautiful that band is, I'd be looking for a setting that complimented it. If I was being fussy, I'd also say that I think the center stone needs to be a little bigger for the 3pt band - or perhaps drop the stones to 2pts (which I know is not possible. I'm just saying - in an ideal world).

However, for my money, I think a .89 stone is a perfect size for a three-stone ring - with either round sides or pears. I also think a three stone would give an old world feel like that beautiful band - especially if the side stones were a little larger than one normally sees these days, which was the fashion way-back-when with three stone rings.

Failing that, a bezeled halo, or something of that nature, might pick up the style of the band better. But if it were me? Three stone all the way.

 

[MollyMalone]

HI, Jimmianne -- would you also clarify if JA is the only player in the game for this reset?

 

[MarionC]

Thanks for the replies.

I do have a variety of rings.
I've tried wearing my Mom's rings... I still feel uncomfortable with the size. They mostly sit in the safe.
I have one of the 0.60 RBs left which I don't often wear.


In the works now are an Asscher, which is in NY being set in a simple hand-forged setting,

and this 0.89.

I did like the JA setting better than any other vendor's settings because the shank is all diamonds with not much metal showing, but if the diamonds are too large for the stone, I should continue to check out other settings at other vendors.
That was my main concern with this particular setting.

I would like to have a setting that compliments my new band. The setting from JA that I was considering has prongs set E-W like the band, which I liked.

 

[MarionC]

Here's one with 2.4mm stones...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the diamonds in the top one are too big, too. 3mm=10 pts each. I think the band is gorgeous and would either wear a plain shank or tiny diamonds in the shank of the e-ring (like 1-3 pointers). What size are the diamonds that are between the clovers in the band? I don't think the e-ring diamonds should be bigger than those.

 

[MollyMalone]

I think the diamonds in the top one are too big, too.

Me, three Based on my playing around with the virtual JA mounting, I think it could work well with a center stone with a contrast-y cut, like a princess, of a certain size. But to my eye, the 3 mm's and even the 2.4 mm RB's kinda obliterate or "fight" with your ACA, rather than highlighting it.

 

[Dreamer_D]

You have a lot of really lovely bands, so I vote to set it into a simple plain metal solitaire with a lovely head shape that looks nice in profile, that way you can pair it with nearly any wedding band! Or a three stone like mrs bloop mentioned.

 

[marcy]

I think the diamond side stones take away from you ACA and since you have such a lovely band I would go with either a solitaire ering or something with smaller diamonds.

 

[MarionC]

Thank you everyone for the excellent feedback!
I felt silly at first not being able to just choose without community feedback, but I'm glad I posted my concern.

[DS, the single stones are 2mm each].

 

[mrs-b]

Hi Jimmianne

I think I'm having problems keeping up with what you do and don't have. Do you still have any .6ct rb's? And - you also have a marquise set with trillain sides and your mothers large RB from Tiffany, yes? Did you proceed with buying an asscher? I'm trying to work out exactly what's in your jewel box before casting an opinion.

I have to say, I'm not a fan of your .89 with the setting of 3 pointers along the band. While I like the setting in general, I think it overwhelms that totally GORGEOUS band you're wearing with it in the last photo you posted - and given how original and beautiful that band is, I'd be looking for a setting that complimented it. If I was being fussy, I'd also say that I think the center stone needs to be a little bigger for the 3pt band - or perhaps drop the stones to 2pts (which I know is not possible. I'm just saying - in an ideal world).

However, for my money, I think a .89 stone is a perfect size for a three-stone ring - with either round sides or pears. I also think a three stone would give an old world feel like that beautiful band - especially if the side stones were a little larger than one normally sees these days, which was the fashion way-back-when with three stone rings.

Failing that, a bezeled halo, or something of that nature, might pick up the style of the band better. But if it were me? Three stone all the way.

Sorry - just to clarify - I kept saying 3 and 2 pointers. Meant 3mm and 2mm. Just a complete brain block - I swear i was seeing 3mm and 2mm when I typed it....

 

[mrs-b]

Also - Jimmianne -

Would you be able to tell me where the setting you posted that has the 2.4mm side stones comes from?

Thanks!

 

[tyty333]

I was thinking maybe a solitaire with NS/EW prongs might look good with your wedding band.

BTW...love your WB!

Edit - something like this would be neat. Sort of mimics your WB.

http://guyandmax.com/jewellery/engagementrings/birdcage_nsew_ring/

 

[MarionC]

Mrs B, the 2.4 is a James Allen setting.

TYTY, that is a most interesting setting! I'm going to look at it some more.

By the way, I cancelled my order with JA given all the feed back and will keep working on a setting.
Back to the drawing board!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I'm glad you cancelled the order. I hated to be the naysayer to yet another mounting but I do think the center stone would blend in too much with those stones in the mounting.

Does it have to be a diamond setting? I really like the one it's set in now - I take it you don't like it? I loved the way the shank tapered down to the stone making it really pop!

 

[MarionC]

I'm glad you cancelled the order. I hated to be the naysayer to yet another mounting but I do think the center stone would blend in too much with those stones in the mounting.

Does it have to be a diamond setting? I really like the one it's set in now - I take it you don't like it? I loved the way the shank tapered down to the stone making it really pop!

Thanks, MGRs. I really wish I'd gotten a straight ring that sits flush with stackers instead of curvy by-pass one which is always crooked, but it's pretty and, importantly, it's paid for already At least the stone is set so I can wear it.
I had no idea a by-pass would be such a pain - it looks asymmetrical which for me = hell.

I'm feeling less crazy tonight. I thought there was another month to wait for my Asscher setting from SK, but he just wrote to say it'll be done within a week. Very happy to hear that.

Hopefully the whole diamond adventure will now settle down for a while!

thanks all.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yay for the new ring coming - can't wait to see it!

A simple four or six prong solitaire setting can be had fairly inexpensively - at least as far as mountings go. Then you could stack to your eye's delight!

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/legato-sleek-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-728.htm

I've always thought this was a pretty mounting for a solitaire - you could even forego the hidden surprise diamond under the prongs. It has a beautiful taper to it as well that makes that center stone pop!

 

[Gypsy]

A simple four or six prong solitaire setting can be had fairly inexpensively - at least as far as mountings go. Then you could stack to your eye's delight!

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/legato-sleek-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-728.htm

I've always thought this was a pretty mounting for a solitaire - you could even forego the hidden surprise diamond under the prongs. It has a beautiful taper to it as well that makes that center stone pop!

This is what I'd do. That band of yours is stunning. I think it needs a solitaire. And the sleek line is a great choice for that.

 

[MarionC]

A simple four or six prong solitaire setting can be had fairly inexpensively - at least as far as mountings go. Then you could stack to your eye's delight!

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/legato-sleek-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-728.htm

I've always thought this was a pretty mounting for a solitaire - you could even forego the hidden surprise diamond under the prongs. It has a beautiful taper to it as well that makes that center stone pop!

This is what I'd do. That band of yours is stunning. I think it needs a solitaire. And the sleek line is a great choice for that.

I do love that setting - it's the one Hathalove chose for her ACA and it works so well.

 

[marcy]

A simple four or six prong solitaire setting can be had fairly inexpensively - at least as far as mountings go. Then you could stack to your eye's delight!

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/legato-sleek-line-solitaire-engagement-ring-728.htm

I've always thought this was a pretty mounting for a solitaire - you could even forego the hidden surprise diamond under the prongs. It has a beautiful taper to it as well that makes that center stone pop!

This is what I'd do. That band of yours is stunning. I think it needs a solitaire. And the sleek line is a great choice for that.

I would like to make this a 3-peat. I think a solitaire with your beautiful band and diamond would make a great set.

How exciting your asscher will be coming soon.

 

[starryeyed]

I think the diamonds in the top one are too big, too. 3mm=10 pts each. I think the band is gorgeous and would either wear a plain shank or tiny diamonds in the shank of the e-ring (like 1-3 pointers). What size are the diamonds that are between the clovers in the band? I don't think the e-ring diamonds should be bigger than those.

I agree with DS 100%. I also like Tyty's idea a lot.

If you want the bling in your band, what about something like this:

http://memoire.com/catalog/collections.aspx?products=2182

I'm not sure, but the stones look smaller, so they hopefully wouldn't distract from that gorgeous band.

 

[MarionC]

Last thing...

Several other choices: The Ritani floral but with a plain shank
engagement-ring-in-18k-white-gold_gi_3193_f.jpg[/img]

WF halo [but with plain shank]

Here is a 1ct bezel test ring for reference.

Either these or one of the solitaires.

 

[starryeyed]

Last thing...

Several other choices: The Ritani floral but with a plain shank

WF halo [but with plain shank]

Here is a 1ct bezel test ring for reference.

Either these or one of the solitaires.

Hi Jimmianne.

That Ritani floral is interesting with a similar motif. The bezel setting does not compliment the band, in my opinion. It's very crisp and modern, whereas that beautiful band is soft and feminine. I think you need a delicate look to not overpower the band.

 

[MarionC]

Thanks, Starryeyed.
Would you choose the Ritani with pave on the shank or have a plain band

Here is my goofy paper ritani : )

 

[MarionC]

...and I just found this which seems even more in tune with the band design...

edit - never mind....I like the "4 lobed" setting better for my band

 

[Dreamer_D]

You would not like the legato because it has a super low profle shank, like 1.3mm, and so it would not pair well with stackers and diamonds bands. I had that setting and if you like the heights of your rings to match, as I do, it is a total PITA.

 

[MarionC]

I've been finding more photos of this setting and really liking it more & more.
I got a quote on it from WF several months ago so looks like I'm coming around to it again.
The diamond in the photo is the same size as mine...the halo adds nice coverage.

 

[MarionC]

You would not like the legato because it has a super low profle shank, like 1.3mm, and so it would not pair well with stackers and diamonds bands. I had that setting and if you like the heights of your rings to match, as I do, it is a total PITA.

Dreamer D,
very good to know! That takes THAT setting out of the equation.

Every ring & setting seem to come with their own surprises that one doesn't realize when choosing them.

I have never met a setting I really loved - I just like diamonds ...
Maybe I should just buy a tube of superglue to stick stones on my fingers

 

[starryeyed]

Thanks, Starryeyed.
Would you choose the Ritani with pave on the shank or have a plain band

Here is my goofy paper ritani : )

Haha! I love it!

That zoomed photo of the band really helps. I noticed there is milgrain (sp?) on the wedding band.

If you don't go with small diamonds (like DS suggested) to build the connection between the two rings, I think it would help to have a similar milgrain finish on the new setting.

You want the 2 rings to speak to one another. I like the pave, as long as it's delicate. Too thick and it could dominate.

What do you think?

 

[MarionC]

Thanks, Starryeyed.
Would you choose the Ritani with pave on the shank or have a plain band

Here is my goofy paper ritani : )

Haha! I love it!

That zoomed photo of the band really helps. I noticed there is milgrain (sp?) on the wedding band.

If you don't go with small diamonds (like DS suggested) to build the connection between the two rings, I think it would help to have a similar milgrain finish on the new setting.

You want the 2 rings to speak to one another. I like the pave, as long as it's delicate. Too thick and it could dominate.

What do you think?

Glad you like my new paper halo

That "4 lobed" Ritani floral seems to have a very delicate pave shank.
Gosh! It's almost as though I'm finally making up my mind