shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. PriceScope Upgrade Completed
    For issues, questions and comments click the link below
    https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pricescope-upgraded-comments-and-issues.229551/

    Dismiss Notice

round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct cen

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by llamage, May 24, 2011.

  1. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 24, 2011
    Hi all,

    I am trying to decide between these two settings for a 1.59 center. I don't want the side stones to take away from the size
    of the middle stone. Do you think that the round stones will do this?

    Here is the PEAR SHAPED, which I am leaning towards:

    http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/18k-White-Gold-3-Stone,-Pave-Set-Diamond-Engagement-Ring.html

    Here is the ROUND SHAPED:

    http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/ring/item_58-4145.asp

    Thanks!
     
  2. kelpie
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,362
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    by kelpie » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    I like the pears too. The round sides do look a little busier...if I were going to do a 3 stone round I would leave off the pave.
     
  3. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,093
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    How large are the fingers in question?

    For smaller fingers I'd do the rounds, with the pave down the sides it'll be a busy look! For larger fingers I'd do the pears for the extra horizontal coverage.
     
  4. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    My GF has a ring size of 5. What exactly does a "busy" look mean?
     
  5. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Ring size of 4.75-5. Very slim fingers
     
  6. kelpie
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,362
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    by kelpie » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Like wearing black eyeliner and red lipstick instead of opting to play up one or the other.
     
  7. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,093
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    busy - just that there will be lots going on, as opposed to a very minimalist, bold look. All up to your preference! I do prefer simpler though, three sizable diamonds is blingy enough for me!

    These threads have threestones on various size fingers - take a stroll, you might find you consistently prefer some proportions over others for rbs/pears wrt how much of the finger is covered :cool:
    (w/ RB sides) https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/3-stone-ring-girls-are-you-out-there-t75486.html
    (w/ pears) https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/for-the-new-trend-blowing-in-t42128.html
     
  8. Laila619
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    11,231
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    by Laila619 » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    I LOVE pear sides with a round center stone, so I would absolutely go with the pears.
     
  9. jaysonsmom
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    2,661
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    by jaysonsmom » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    I agree with all the posters. I think a plain shank with a 3-stone is better. The pave would make it look too much.

    As for the sidestone shape, I like both pears and rounds, but if they are round, they have to be much smaller than the center so that it creates a large contrast.
     
  10. AmeliaG
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    880
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    by AmeliaG » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    I like the pears better. The round side stones seem to compete with the center diamond too much. I also noticed the round side stone ring doesn't have anything in recently purchased whereas the pear side stone ring does. That can be a sign that more people have liked the pear side stones.
     
  11. dreamer_dachsie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,832
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    by dreamer_dachsie » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    First, what does your gf prefer? ;)

    Second, the image from JA looks like a 1ct center, since the sides on that ring are actually only .25 ct each. With your size center, the actual proportions with RB sides will look very different and will look more like the pears, actually. More like this: http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/home/ring-details/?product_id=5448

    I prefer RBs on my own hand. That's why you need to ask your gf what she likes, or else take her to try some rings on and see what she prefers.

    But I vote no pave as well.
     
  12. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    thanks for all the advice! She wants me to surprise her so this is why I am choosing it. Her sister stated that she doesn't want sometihng that will take away from the center stone nor overwhelm her fingers.

    I'll try to find one without the pave.


    thanks
     
  13. dreamer_dachsie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    23,832
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    by dreamer_dachsie » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Are you sure she wants a three-stone look at all? Not a solitaire?
     
  14. Amys Bling
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    11,025
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    by Amys Bling » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct


    I like how you explained this! lol, I agree, having a three stone with pave sides may be "a lot" going on and therefore detracting from the main center stone. I actually just learned this myself- I have a solitaire on an eternity band and I thought I would want two eternities to flank my Ering, and once I tried that look on, I felt that it actually took away from the main cernter stone. So this is something to consider if you are wanting to make the center stone standout more.
     
  15. Amys Bling
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    11,025
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    by Amys Bling » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Oh- and I really am liking the pear side stones a lot!! :mrgreen:
     
  16. AmeliaG
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    880
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    by AmeliaG » May 24, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Oh yeah, definitely recommend no pave. With a 3 stone, pave is sort of like 'gilding the lily' You don't really need it.

    Whatever the side stones, it goes without saying that they would need to be small in relation to the center stone to keep the focus on the center stone. If the side stones are small enough, I personally think the actual shape of the side stones is not as important as the overall look of the 3 stones together.

    Here, the small pear side stones in attractive positions enhance the center stone rather than take attention away from it. One drawback to rounds is that they look the same no matter which way they're turned which makes it harder to add some visual variety to visually separate the sides from the center stone.
     
  17. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    again, thanks everyone for the replys!

    @Dreamer_D... I don't know for a fact, but I asked her sister, and her sister thinks she will definetly like side stones, but just not big enough to detract from the center.

    UNFORTUNATELY....james allen doesn't have 3 stone pear WITHOUT the pave. Furthermore, the 3 stone, pave only supports a 0.5-1.5ct range...which is just slightly above my 1.59 ct stone.

    However, they have gemstones with a similar style:

    http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-colored-sidestones/Pear-Shape-Emerald-Engagement-Ring.html

    I asked them to switch out the emerald with a pear shaped diamond and give me back an estimate. So we'll see how it goes.
     
  18. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,093
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Well... I don't think that JA w/ pear diamonds is going to give you the look you're going for, if maximizing the impact of the centerstone is indeed very important. The sides and the center look to be set on the same plane, which makes the piece look more substantial as a whole by making the sidestones more important - and by extension necessarily taking away from the importance of the center alone. Choosing smaller sides, and having them tuck underneath the center, is a better way to ensure that the center gets - well, centerstage, if that is what you want to see ;)

    Here's what I mean -


    this is the ring you are considering


    [​IMG]

    which looks a lot like this super blingy design

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    vs this very similar design, but w/ sides tucked under the center, the center is prominent and the sides are backdrop

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    From this thread http://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/three-stone-rings-t29445.html
     
  19. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

     
  20. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,093
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    I'm not sure if JA does custom, or semi custom - best call in! I assume you bought the stone from JA, and that is the impetus for restricting the vendor search?
     
  21. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Yup, I'll keep asking them!
     
  22. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    the JA representative mentioned that they could possibly put the center diamond in a peg type head to look like a solitaire, and keep the side pear stones in basket form. However, I don't want it look too awkward. Do you guys think it'll look ok?

    thanks
     
  23. AmeliaG
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    880
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    by AmeliaG » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    That would raise the center stone profile wouldn't it? Hmm. Not sure I'd like the profile to be higher than it already is.
     
  24. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    18,093
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct



    Like this? http://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-diamond-ring?forceStep=STYLE_STEP&offer_id=2381

    Hmm... here it is w/ a 1.5 centre, too bad they don't have more views..
    Honestly - not loving it :sick: I guess I should amend my last post - given the choice between sides and centre all in baskets at the same height and this sort of mixing basket/peghead style - I choose the former, like what you picked earlier!

    [​IMG]
     
  25. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 25, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    Thanks Yssie for looking around for me. Unfortunately, the first choice I wanted was only for 0.5-1.5 ct stones. I think 1.59 ct passes that mark. I'll work with the JA representative to see what's the best option that will give me that "centerpiece" look. Luckily they have a good return policy, but it would be a hassle to have to send it back If I don't like it or if my gf doesn't like it.
     
  26. llamage
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    by llamage » May 27, 2011
    Re: round side stones vs pear shaped side stones for 1.59 ct

    the ja representative said that they can do make the first ring without the smaller diamonds for the same price.
    My ring is 1.59 ct, but they said they can fit it in and choose the right pear sides to match it. Here is a picture of a 1.5 ct with the pear sides.
    http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/sold/3394/big/Engagement-Rings.jpg

    So basically this diamond, and they remove the side stones fill it with white gold. What do you guys think?


    Here are some more views of it again:

    http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/18k-White-Gold-3-Stone,-Pave-Set-Diamond-Engagement-Ring.html

    Do you guy thinks without the pave stones that it will give that enhanced look?
     

Share This Page