Setting affecting size look of diamond?

[Austina]

I asked recently about a heavily pave set mount, and the advice was go simpler on the setting and bigger on the diamond.

Having given the advice much thought, of course, you guys are right. Apart from anything else, my lifestyle is such that if I had to be ultra careful of the ring, I wouldn't end up wearing it much, which defeats the whole object of having it!

So, my question is this, which of these 2 mounts will make my diamond (yet to be chosen) look biggest?

I like this, but I'm wondering if this will 'close in' the diamond, and also with no profile pictures, it difficult to tell how high it sits.

https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...dern-tulip-diamond-engagement-ring-item-50671

I also like this, and wonder if the prongs will give the optical illusion of making adiamond look bigger?

https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...solitaire-engagement-ring-six-prong-item-7995

I want to decide on a mount first before asking for your help searching for my diamond, so I'd really appreciate your input. Thanks

 

[tyty333]

Personally I dont think either of these will affect the size of diamond. The only thing that makes a stone
look bigger are halos but certain settings like bezels can sometimes make a stone look bigger for what
ever reason.

I prefer the first setting. The second setting is a pretty generic looking setting.

 

[Kbell]

Plainish solitaire settings have always been my fave! I like the 1st setting better too. It looks more flowy & feminine... prettier.

 

[Austina]

I'm such a fickle fusspants . I've just found this setting, which I also really like now, any thoughts?

http://www.b2cjewels.com//1/TSUS3062/Side-Halo-Diamond-Engagement-Ring-in-14K-White-Gold

 

[rubybeth]

That bc2 setting is okay, but I think the Vatche Caroline is a more refined version of that look (solitaire with pave accent on the head): https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...e-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-251.htm

I also don't think a 4 prong solitaire is going to make a stone look "bigger." Depending on the size of the stone, a 6 or 8 prong setting will round out the diamond a bit more than a 4 prong, but not necessarily add visual presence from the top view.

 

[Dancing Fire]

IMO, A higher setting will make the diamond appear larger.

 

[Tophat1]

That bc2 setting is okay, but I think the Vatche Caroline is a more refined version of that look (solitaire with pave accent on the head): https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...e-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-251.htm

.

I was going to recommend the same! The Caroline is very fluid and graceful. I think the b2c setting actually makes the diamond look smaller

 

[stonewell]

I love the first JA Modern Tulip setting too! So much that I recently used it for my new ring... It's tapered where it meets the basket, so I think gives the illusion of a bigger diamond compared to a shank that has a consistent width. Another bonus is you have the option of claw prongs if that's your preference.

I posted a SMTB thread that has additional photos; hopefully it will help give you some additional views of the setting:

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...y-buttery-m-diamond-warning-pic-heavy.229666/

 

[Austina]

Once again, I knew I could rely on your honest opinions and suggestions. Lovely to see your beautiful Tulip Stonewall, certainly helps me visualise it better.

I'm going to have a good think before making a final decision.

Thank you all so much.

 

[tyty333]

I'm such a fickle fusspants . I've just found this setting, which I also really like now, any thoughts?

http://www.b2cjewels.com//1/TSUS3062/Side-Halo-Diamond-Engagement-Ring-in-14K-White-Gold

This is a really wide shank 3-3.7mm. Some people tend to think wider bands make the stone
look smaller. I'm not a big fan of this setting due to the shank and I just dont think its
executed well like the Vatche Caroline (in this case I guess you get what you pay for).

I do like how stonewell's ring looks...very pretty.

So you are willing to go with a 4 prong (according to you last link). Here are a few more to look at.
They are relatively simple but nice.
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...ess-engagement-ring-by-jeff-cooper-item-54211

https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...al-engagement-ring-by-martin-flyer-item-54952


A little more expensive
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...solitaire-engagement-ring-by-danhov-item-7224

This one is cool looking but again a little more expensive.
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...gement-ring-style-we503p-by-danhov-item-59877

 

[Austina]

Gosh there was me thinking that 3mm didn't seem very thick. I have small hands, but unfortunately horrid fat fingers and a 2mm shank looks a piece of thread on me.

Thanks for the other suggestions, I'll check them out too.

 

[Octo2005]

Gosh there was me thinking that 3mm didn't seem very thick. I have small hands, but unfortunately horrid fat fingers and a 2mm shank looks a piece of thread on me.

Thanks for the other suggestions, I'll check them out too.

- I unfortunately suffer from the same affliction 5.5 - 6, and hate my finger muffin top.
I have found the split shank settings to be flattering without being overly thick, if you keep the shanks thin.

 

[Austina]

Your fingers sound positively slyph like @Octo2005, I'm a whopping 6.5/6.75

 

[rubybeth]

The average ring size in the US is 6, which is why most stock rings in stores are around this size or larger for women to try on. So your ring size is close to average. PS average seems to be lower because we have people from all over the world with varying body types.

 

[kenny]

IMO things people do to try to make their diamond 'look' larger do not work.

I've seen settings that raise the diamond up high with skyscraper prongs, acres of pave, double and triple halos, cleverly beveled/faceted metal circling the diamond, 4 small princess cuts 'invisibly' set (all touching each other) to look like one large princess.

I've never mistaken these for one large diamond and I doubt many people are fooled.
I think a setting that just simply, safely, and proudly holds the diamond is immensely more flattering than one trying to play tricks on the eye.

 

[rubybeth]

I think there's a difference between trying to make a center stone look "larger" and just going for "more finger coverage." A halo will give you more finger coverage but it won't fool anyone who knows diamonds into thinking the center stone is larger, as kenny says.

 

[Matthews1127]

Austina,
I believe there is a method to the madness, here...and I'll share with you my USD $0.10 worth...lol!
I'm a firm believer that a diamond MUST be able to stand on its own, WITHOUT the help of "optical illusion" BEFORE adding anything else to it, and possibly diminishing the solidarity, and integrity of the diamond.
A solitaire should have personality that fits the diamond; they are a pair. Without knowing what your diamond looks like, and how she moves, I simply must wait to share my thoughts...
HOWEVER...if I had to select from any of the above suggested settings, I would go with tulip and bling basket with 2.5-2.75mm shanks.
I wish you well on your quest, and I anxiously await photos of your precious diamond!!! I can't wait to see what you select!!! It's going to be amazing!
CRM

 

[Austina]

Well after all that, I decided I'm not a 'round' girl, andwent for something completely different

 

[Matthews1127]

Do share!!!

 

[ringo865]

Aaaaaaaustina. Suspense!! What shape?!?!

 

[Austina]

I went for marquise in the end, in a halo to protect it, split shank with diamonds, low profile in platinum.

 

[Matthews1127]

I went for marquise in the end, in a halo to protect it, split shank with diamonds, low profile in platinum.

Details, Austina!! Details!!! You're killing me...lol!!