Setting Advice

[RockHard]

Long time listener, first time caller.

I came across some of these settings and liked the style a lot. However, they are for monster, movie-star diamonds. How would these look on a more modest 1K diamond? For what its worth, its not the pave I am most interested in, but rather how the ring is split. Could the ring be a lot thinner to keep similar proportions by matching the smaller rock. Or are there structural reasons it can''t be too thin?

If anyone has any comments or knows of any examples of something like this in a more modest stone I would appreciate it.

 

[pricescope]

Welcome to the forums RockHard, is it for the engagement ring? If so, you can achieve similar look having an e-ring designed with straight basket. Now the question is are you going to pay extra $$ for custom work or you need some premade setting? Also what shape of 1 ct stone it would be?

My guess is that those parts of pave on your pictures are as thin as it gets.

I will make some pictures to illustrate possible custom designs...

 

[RockHard]

Yes, it for an engagement ring. I was seriously considering custom but my budget is about $7500 I think. So, I haven't decided what the best use of that money would be yet. I don't really have a great idea of what customs run (I really like Mark Morrell's work). I imagine if I did the custom route I would want to drop down to closer to a 3/4 ct.

I am leaning towards a princess, but am still deciding.

 

[pricescope]

Quick search in Amazon brought this http://www.amazon.com/Ladies-Diamond-Engagement-Split-Shank/dp/B000M46KIK/sr=1-22/qid=1169843891/ref=sr_1_22/002-8120488-1012011?ie=UTF8&s=jewelry, it's for 2 ct emerald shape though, just to give you an idea.
I will look more...

 

[pricescope]

This one leaves $ 6.500 for the stone, which is a very healthy budget.

 

[RockHard]

thanks for the help. Those are both beautiful. I was kind of hoping that there might be something more delicate (thinner shanks). But, that may not be structurally possible. I have been doing some searches (now that I know its called split shank) and haven''t seen much thinner either.

 

[Adylon]

Am I correct that you don't want pave diamonds but just 2-3 plain bands to get the same look? This would help you make the bands thinner of course, but the thinner you go the more prone it is to bending, etc. You'll want to use a hard metal alloy, 14K white gold, etc.

To beef it up a bit you don't have to perfectly round bands. You can have the top of the band tapered up and the bottom of the band euro-style with the sqaured off corners to give it some more heft and make it less prone to warpage from wear. This way it would still have that look of being very thin when viewed from the top, but it would have more strength. I made a quick sketch for you so you know what I mean, I'm sorry it's so rough by the way

You could also add a halo of diamonds around your princess stone to get a large lxw and therefor more width to make your bands more spaced out or wider.

Good Luck

 

[Gypsy]

http://www.firenzejewels.com/diamonds/info/9-Engagement%20Mountings-13-2830-000-Lady-s-.55ct-diamond-and-platinum-engagement-ring-setting-000-.html

It''s got a halo, but the shanks look about right.

What you want is a split shank without a halo though... have to keep searching.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 1/26/2007 3:16:20 PM
Author:RockHard
Long time listener, first time caller.

I came across some of these settings and liked the style a lot. However, they are for monster, movie-star diamonds. How would these look on a more modest 1K diamond? For what its worth, its not the pave I am most interested in, but rather how the ring is split. Could the ring be a lot thinner to keep similar proportions by matching the smaller rock. Or are there structural reasons it can''t be too thin?

If anyone has any comments or knows of any examples of something like this in a more modest stone I would appreciate it.

you might be able to do two but I seriously doubt three because in order to do so they''d be basically stacked into one thick band... if you have a hugeomongous 12mm stone you can afford to have 3 2mm bands with 2 3mm gaps.... but if you have a 5mm stone even with 2 2mm bands you''re gonna get maybe 1mm in between.... UNLESS you beef it up somehow with a halo or something but that''s gonna push you over 1000 for sure...

 

[RockHard]

keep 'em coming. these are very helpful. Wow, great sketch by the way. Thanks for the effort.

I looked at that first emerald cut a little more and I am thinking emerald may be a way to help the ring out. If it has a longer edge on one side, it might give more space to work with.

I also found these at faycullen.com Some variation on this with a larger stone in the middle might be quite nice and give me the spacing I was hoping for. I am not sure that I would want to go the tension route with a larger stone. Although it works great for the stone in the picture I think. These are about .2 cts for a scale reference. The way the ring comes around the stone would let the shanks be split further apart like a halo would allow.

 

[Adylon]

another thing to consider if you don't have the stone yet... instead of getting a perfectly square princess you could get one that is slightly rectangular... and help to get you another 1/2mm or so extra in width to play with, every little bit helps

 

[pricescope]

It''s definitely possible to make those rings not tension set, but imo they do not look much like e-rings.

 

[pricescope]

It''s a very lame photoshop job, sorry, but it just one option for you how to make a bigger space between 2 lines - a kite princess set.

 

[Bunnifer]

^^ Unique! And it's not hard at all to request thinner bands. As to how thin, you'll have to ask a jeweler.

One thing to keep in mind -- I know you want the superthin look in the magazines, and you seem to think that the rings pictures are slightly chunkier than you'd prefer. But the rings pictured are magnified pics -- not how they would look in someone's hand. They're blown up to show detail. The rings featured in the mags are pics taken from far away. So, the rings suggested here on PS might actually have the superthin look you're going for -- you just have to see them in person.

So, I'd focus less on perceived thinness (unless, of course, it LOOKS thick) and more on the style -- e.g., halo, kite, etc.

 

[Bunnifer]

What about the split shank on the upper right hand corner of this pic? I think it''s a unique twist on a split shank concept...and it looks very thin! It has a cushion in it right now, but I think it''d look great w/ a princess!!

 

[Bunnifer]

And my all-time fave split shank...

And here it is with a pink tourmaline and different view....

 

[Bunnifer]

OK I''m really going to stop now....after this post!

Since you''re not COMMITTED to a princess cut, can I suggest this Simon G split shank halo (for an RB)? I belive this is curiousaboutdiamonds'' ring pictured. I don''t know how much this setting runs, but I think it''s gorgous -- delicate split shank, and a halo would make a 1ct or 3/4 ct really P

P! Although curiousaboutdiamond''s ring is 2+ cts., I''m sure you could ask if Simon G makes it for a smaller stone.

 

[Carlotta]

Date: 1/26/2007 6:10:06 PM
Author: Pricescope
It''s a very lame photoshop job, sorry, but it just one option for you how to make a bigger space between 2 lines - a kite princess set.

This one REALLY has potential....what a unique way to set a princess......

 

[Shay37]

I just vote we crown Irina the queen design maven of Pricescope.

shay

 

[Gypsy]

I didn''t post these before b/c they were priced too high... but well... why not?

http://www.firenzejewels.com/diamonds/info/9-Engagement%20Mountings-283-229-000-Lady-s-1.68ct-diamond-platinum-engagement-ring-mounting-000-.html

http://www.firenzejewels.com/diamonds/info/9-Engagement%20Mountings-43-2619-000-Lady-s-2.18ct-diamond-18k-white-gold-antique-style-engagement-ring-setiing-000-.html

 

[pricescope]

Kite prinsess - straight basket.

 

[RockHard]

that last photoshop helps a lot. I think that has a lot of potential. I am going to think on it. I am not on a time crunch so I am going to keep thinking for a while. But, I like that a lot for sure. Thanks for the advice, I will keep you up to date on what I am thinking.

 

[kcoursolle]

I am loving the split shank eye-candy in this thread. Here''s my split shank to add to the mix. It''s not high quality, but I like the look. It''s semi-custom meaning that they soldered together the three parts (bands and the basket). The bands are 1.6mm and the center stone is a .74 radiant on a 4.5 hand just for reference. I think 1.6 mm is really the lowest a jeweler will go for structural reasons, and if I knew that I wouldn''t be upgrading the setting after a few years I probably would have stayed at about 1.9mm. Some people here have had crushing problems with bands below 2mm.

 

[kcoursolle]

....

 

[RockHard]

I am not sure that I am looking at this right.

A .74 carat radiant should be more or less about 6mm length-wise from what I see. If that is the right dimension, then it seems to me that each shank would be closer to or less than 1mm (just looking at the proportions). Does that mean that you have a combined width of 1.6 (i.e. - each of those bands is .8 thick)?

Or, are you saying that your radiant is 7.4mm, not carats. I am asking because I have been sketching and I think the proportions of your ring are getting closer to what I am after.

this is kind of fun.

 

[denverappraiser]

1mm shanks is not structurally sufficient for an engagement ring that is intended to be worn daily for a lifetime. To some extent this can be mitigated by making it thicker instead of wider (take a look at Diagem’s drawing again, that’s a good way to get a thin look without compromising wearability. Also check out the cross section of the bands on kcoursolle's). If the shank gets bent even a little bit I think you will loose the light and lacy look that you’re seeking. Give yourself a minimum of at least 1.5 on each side and make sure they are connected together at the bottom (at the palm of the hand) like they are in every picture posted except for possibly the ones from the original advertisement. Even 1.5mm is pushing it.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 1/28/2007 6:24:43 AM
Author: RockHard
I am not sure that I am looking at this right.

A .74 carat radiant should be more or less about 6mm length-wise from what I see. If that is the right dimension, then it seems to me that each shank would be closer to or less than 1mm (just looking at the proportions). Does that mean that you have a combined width of 1.6 (i.e. - each of those bands is .8 thick)?

Or, are you saying that your radiant is 7.4mm, not carats. I am asking because I have been sketching and I think the proportions of your ring are getting closer to what I am after.

this is kind of fun.

Hi Rockhard,
The height of my radiant is 6.29mm and the width is 4.97mm. In the basket it might be a little closer to 7mm in height with the added prongs. The shanks are indeed 1.6mm (each), and are quite tall as Neil was mentioning is important for durability and the ring is soldered in the back as well.

EDIT: My radiant is sightly shallow (60% depth) which is probably why you are confused at how a .74 can have those dimensions.

 

[RockHard]

Came across this setting from MK Diamonds. I think I have a leader. I know I said Princess and split shank, but this ring really caught my eye.

I was just pretty excited about it, thought I would share.