Setting built smaller depending on finger size?

[Babyblue033]

Should the overall size of the setting determined by the finger size? I''m talking about the size of the head, halo, total carat weight, etc being designed proportionally depending on finger size.

We just returned our Beverly K setting to the jeweler because we noticed that the smaller stones surrounding the center stone looked smaller than the photo on their website we chose the setting from. The description of the setting states that it has .55 tcw, but when we returned the ring they confirmed that mine had .33 instead

So they were going to rebuild the setting which we were very understanding about and accepted that there was a human error somewhere.

Then we were just told that the .55 is on the stock size of 6.5, and because my finger size is 4.75 setting will be built smaller and will have .44 tcw instead. So they quote me the same price as the stock setting, yet I''ll get a smaller setting with less diamonds? That to me is completely unacceptable

Not to mention, if that was the case then shouldn''t they have disclosed that before we purchased the setting???

I can see that modification may be needed due to the center stone size, and certain designs may be difficult to build for very small fingers, but I don''t believe that my 4.75 finger size merits that. By the way, my center stone was 1.03 and I know another PS member who has the same setting with slightly smaller center stone and her overall ring looked larger on her finger than mine did (don''t know her finger size).

Both FI and I are quite upset about this and cannot understand that this would be a common practice

I was hoping that the knowledgeable PSers can provide some insight before my FI talks to the jeweler on Monday.

 

[girlie-girl]

I've been dealing with JamesAllen.com and I know the ring I bought says this:

"Shown with two carat radiant. All diamond weights are approximate and will vary with finger and diamond size. *Ring price does not include center diamond.

# of Round diamonds: 60
Minimum carat total weight: 0.30
Average color: F-G
Average clarity: VS1-VS2 "

If you purchased the ring at a local B&M, it certainly would have been prudent for the sales associate to explain this. Sorry to hear you weren't aware of this and that you're both upset.

I hope it all works out for the best. Good luck.

 

[heb1976]

Hi, sorry your having so much trouble! In my experience the ring size and diamond size is called in to the designer before a quote is given. It''s all relative to the cost of the ring. IMHO you should not pay the same price. As far as the size of the side diamonds that should be based on your main stone size, not you finger size.

 

[Babyblue033]

The photo description just said, "The total diamond weight is .55ct. Center stone not included".

I mean, I really didn't even care about what the total carat is. I just expected the setting to be what was advertised and was surprised to find that they scale the setting per finger size, and now upset at how this information is being presented to us.

Thinking back on it, I did feel that the overall setting looked "proportionally" small on my finger and thought it was odd since my finger size is pretty small. Now I know it was BUILT smaller...

 

[girlie-girl]

Yep they scale the setting and they don''t reduce the price. They scale it so that it does look like the ring you saw on the website, once it''s on your hand. I wear a 5.25 which is below the ''stock'' size too and I didn''t get any sort of discount from what the website showed, but at least I was aware. I''m slated to receive my ring this week, so I''m not sure what the sidestones will end up weighing yet.

Did you purchase from a website vendor or did you see the ring online and then purchase it from a local vendor?

Sorry I couldn''t provide better news.

 

[LaraOnline]

Personally, I agree with the OP. Consumers should be able to buy the ring, as advertised. And to not offer an overall cheaper price for a cheaper product - what is that?

Smaller ring sizes, in the 4 range, are really not uncommon. There is no reason to treat customers such as the OP (and me!) as second class jewellery buyers!!!

Individual diamonds weight / mm diameter etc really should be standard across all sizes, with perhaps the OPTION to scale down! Or at least should be very clearly marked.
Now that this issue has been brought to my attention, I feel concerned, especially (I''m afraid to say) about buying online.

Perhaps there''s lots of girls like me, who would prefer the choice of slightly FEWER diamonds of the stock size, rather than the same number, using smaller diamonds?

Sorry if I sound hysterical, but...

 

[Babyblue033]

But what if I actually went to the store (I bought from the website but they do have a actual store), tried on the sample setting in 6.5, then ordered it for how it looks on my finger? Would it have been then acceptable to receive the ring that looks smaller? According to the jeweler they have this ring in size 7 in the store and my ring "dwarfed" next to it

Honestly, I''m just trying to figure out if I''m being unreasonable because this just doesn''t make much sense to me

I do know we''re extra frustrated for finding out about all of this now, not before the setting was ordered and made...

 

[Rhea]

It does make sense to have the ring scaled down for the finger size or stone size, but this is something I''d want to know before I ordered it. I''d be upset. Before your post I''d never considered that they even did this.

 

[LaraOnline]

Well I''m sticking to my guns and saying that people with little fingers should have the choice... I don''t want ''little diamonds'' for my ''little setting''.

If the setting can''t be easily adjusted to accommodate the full size diamonds in the setting, the ''petite'' version should be sold as a separate version of the ring.

Does that sound unfair?

I could have very large hands with skinny fingers!

Diamond size is such an important part of the aesthetics of diamond jewellery...

 

[girlie-girl]

No I don''t think that''s unfair to ask at all. Yes, absolutely, the purchaser should be made aware that the ring will vary slightly in a smaller version. I totally agree "smaller rings" should cost a bit less because there is less gold/platinum or whatever being used. It just doesn''t seem as though they ever are.

Maybe one of the pros could clear things up. I''m afraid my own purchase is the extent of my knowledge on the scaling of rings etc.

Still I''m sorry to hear you''re so upset and frustrated. I certainly hope you''re able to get things sorted and can truly enjoy your ring having it just as you thought it would be.

 

[mrssalvo]

I can understand being upset and I'm glad you caught the error and are getting the setting remade with larger sidestones. I find odd that BK would change the side diamond weight based on the finger/ring size though. I have heard of designers changing the sidestone weight based on the center stone size. what size center stone did the ring you tried on in the store have in it? I do agree that the setting price should be less if there is less stone weight and the customer should be made aware during purchase.

many times smaller rings are more difficult to make and often even cost more than if purchased in a stock size.

babyblue- i'd ask the vendor why their isn't a price difference size when smaller side diamonds are used. they are going to be the only one's to tell you their reasoning. let us know what you find out.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 6/29/2008 5:17:59 AM
Author: LaraOnline



Smaller ring sizes, in the 4 range, are really not uncommon. There is no reason to treat customers such as the OP (and me!) as second class jewellery buyers!!!

goodness lara, where have you been treated to poorly? i wear a 3.5 and have never been treated or felt like I was a second class jewelry buyer due to my ring size whether I was at a local jeweler or dealing with a PS vendor online.

I honestly don''t think the OP was treated poorly b/c of the ring size and it sounds like the vendor is having a new setting made right? not sure that puts them in the bad guys camp. It could have been an honest mistake or like I said, many designers will adjust the proportions of sidestones due to the stone size. settings could look very different if you put a .5 carat stone next to to .5''s or if you put a 1.5 carat stone next to two .5''s. designers make the adjustments so the settings will look proportionately the same. of course I believe price should be adjusted for less diamond weight it that type of circumstance. but adjusting the price based on the finger size is silly. then should folks with size 7''s have to pay more b/c more metal and diamonds are used?

 

[Babyblue033]

Date: 6/29/2008 10:08:31 AM
Author: mrssalvo
I can understand being upset and I''m glad you caught the error and are getting the setting remade with larger sidestones. I find odd that BK would change the side diamond weight based on the finger/ring size though. I have heard of designers changing the sidestone weight based on the center stone size. what size center stone did the ring you tried on in the store have in it? I do agree that the setting price should be less if there is less stone weight and the customer should be made aware during purchase.


many times smaller rings are more difficult to make and often even cost more than if purchased in a stock size.

I didn''t try on the actual setting. I bought the diamond and setting through a PS vendor and they tried to send me a sample ring to try on but couldn''t because BK didn''t have one available at that time. I tried on many similar rings at local stores, looked at all the photos of everyone who has this setting (one PSer has the exact one, another one has a replica of it), which obviously wasn''t ideal but I thought gave me a pretty good idea.

When I got the ring I did notice that it looked quite "petite" than I expected but I figured pictures probably didn''t translate it quite right. But I re-looked at all the photos and compared to mine, and other settings do look larger and have better finger coverage than mine did, and their center stones are very similarly sized to mine.

We just emailed them and said we want the ring to be made to the "standard" proportion but for size 5. If BK is not able, or willing, to do this then we would rather go with a different setting. Combination of the "scaled down" setting and how they decided not to share this bits of information with anyone, makes us very unwilling to go much further with this issue

 

[butterfly 17]

Hi, I think that I can sort of understand where the smaller carat weight comes in, but I don''t understand why you should have to pay the same price for less carat weight.

If the band size is smaller, they will have to use less diamonds, especially if they have diamonds on the band itself. That would explain less carat weight.

For example, if you get an eternity band with 17 diamonds at a stock size 6, then it would make sense that at size 4, they would use 14 diamonds or something like that. The overall diameter or weight of each diamond would still match the stock size, but the the total carat weight would be less since there is less finger to cover.

I have seen some designers/stores charge more actually for smaller finger size because they consider it a custom piece and nonrefundable because they would not be able to resell to someone else since it is hard to find people who wants the same exact piece with the same exact small finger size. Mostly these are with eternity style settings though.

I have also seen them charge more for a larger finger size (> because they use more metal and more diamonds. Again, mostly with eternity type settings.

I have only seen one company that sells according to actual carat weight based on finger size and that would be Signed Pieces. If you ever look up their website and look at their eternity bands, you will see that the price depends on finger size and the carat weight is adjusted as well.

Good luck with your ring!

 

[Babyblue033]

Date: 6/29/2008 10:18:44 AM
Author: mrssalvo

Date: 6/29/2008 5:17:59 AM

Author: LaraOnline
Smaller ring sizes, in the 4 range, are really not uncommon. There is no reason to treat customers such as the OP (and me!) as second class jewellery buyers!!!

goodness lara, where have you been treated to poorly? i wear a 3.5 and have never been treated or felt like I was a second class jewelry buyer due to my ring size whether I was at a local jeweler or dealing with a PS vendor online.

I honestly don''t think the OP was treated poorly b/c of the ring size and it sounds like the vendor is having a new setting made right? not sure that puts them in the bad guys camp. It could have been an honest mistake or like I said, many designers will adjust the proportions of sidestones due to the stone size. settings could look very different if you put a .5 carat stone next to to .5''s or if you put a 1.5 carat stone next to two .5''s. designers make the adjustments so the settings will look proportionately the same. of course I believe price should be adjusted for less diamond weight it that type of circumstance. but adjusting the price based on the finger size is silly. then should folks with size 7''s have to pay more b/c more metal and diamonds are used?

My issue mostly is with BK and not with the PS vendor. Obviously they''re a middle man in this and they''ve been extremely understanding and helpful so far. It seems they were not aware of this either so it was a surprise for us all when BK informed them of what happened with my ring. BK is re-making the setting, and I have asked that they make me the "standard" setting to my ring size, so we''ll see what they say to that.

 

[mrssalvo]

do you have a picture or link to your setting?

you said in your first paragraph that the vendor said they would have the setting remade correctly and they agreed that there was an error somewhere. to me, that''s good news! I


i was just thinking b/c my pave setting has 1 ct. of pave diamonds in a size 3.75. the stock size 6.25 has 1.24 cts of pave diamonds. the price for the setting would be the same despite the lower ct. weight in my ring. the diamonds cost very little, it''s the labor that can really affect the price which would be just as intensive despite the smaller or larger ring size.

 

[Babyblue033]

Not the best picture, but it shows how the ring sits on my finger.

This ring was actually made smaller than what the scaled down ring should've been for my size. So standard will have .55, my ring had .33, and BK is saying they'll make me the new setting with .44.

And this setting doesn't have diamonds going all around either, it has the stones around the center stone, some underneath, and 4 stones going down on each side about half way.

Ironically, the reason why I chose this setting was because I wanted something a little more substantial and they made me a "petite" version

 

[Babyblue033]

Side view.

 

[mrssalvo]

well your ring is gorgeous. I was confused thinking there were only 2 sidestones with a total weight of .55 but now I see that your setting is more pave and bezel set melee so I can see how less diamonds would be used for a smaller ring size. as butterfly said Signedpieces is the only vendor I know of that adjust price based on finger size. so I can also see why there wouldn''t be a price adjustment. however, smaller diamonds shouldn''t have been used making a petite version if you didn''t order one. anyway, i''m sorry for the mix-up and am really glad your vendor is going to have it remade correctly for you.

 

[LaraOnline]

Sorry Mrs Salvo,
I guess it sounded like I was really irate! Actually, I just mean that ''executive decisions'' such as smaller individual diamond weights should really be related to the customer, and the customer should have the final say, if possible.

I have smaller fingers, but the setting I commission should really be the setting I buy (IMHO). I wouldn''t like an ''executive decision'' that my finger-width can''t handle the ''full-size'' diamonds. Sorry if that sounded OTT.

It just would take a lot of energy to communicate this whole issue to the customer...I wonder if this is why the original poster was not fully informed of this style/design decision?

 

[mrssalvo]

that''s ok lara. i think a lot of designers offer petite versions based on the stone size, not the finger size and they are up front with the customer. It sounds like in baby''s case the vendor was unaware of the change and it''s an error, not some conspircy by designers to make a petite setting for smaller fingers. i think this was just a mistake and it''s not at all "common practice." just my opinion though

 

[kcoursolle]

I can understand your concern about getting less than you paid for, but honestly I think your ring is so pretty just the way it is. I would be hesitant to change the proportions.

Like you I have a small finger size (4.25) and I am often frustrated that quotes for eternity bands and the like aren''t reduced in price even though the band includes less metal and stones.