Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Setting that will MAXIMIZE size of diamond

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
R

rosy

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
422
Hi,
Can anyone recommend a setting that will make my 1.85 carat round brilliant diamond look even BIGGER? I''m many, many, many years away from my 3 carat upgrade (if it happens at all) & want to reset my diamond so that it appears as LARGE as it possibly can, I''m definitely a size girl! Please note I am definitely not interested in a "halo" type setting as I''ve tried these on & they do not flatter my hand. Anyone have pics? Am open to solitaires, engagement rings with sidestones, anything that will do the trick!!! Thanks so much!!!
 
to me sapphire sidestones make the center stone pop and stand out looking larger than it is.
a 1/2 bezel with trilliant sapphire sides would pop!
 
A solitare on a very thin (2mm or so) plain or pave band would do the trick!

Edited to add: A girl on here has a 1.3mm Vera Wang band that really makes her center stone look huge! Check the last page or two of the SMTR thread.
 
I wouldn''t use sidestones unless they are baguettes (very thin) The thinner the band the larger the diamond looks. I think a bezel makes the diamond look bigger or a six prong vs. four. Maybe even an eight prong (Tacori has a few beauties).
 
Date: 1/4/2006 11:59:18 PM
Author: strmrdr
to me sapphire sidestones make the center stone pop and stand out looking larger than it is.

a 1/2 bezel with trilliant sapphire sides would pop!
Click to expand...

Ohh..Storm. I agree with the sapphires. I feel like the ones on my setting so make my center stone stand out. Sometimes the centersone blends into the band so the contrast really is beautiful!
 
I''d say sidestones, round ones with a round, small...maybe .40''s with a 1.85c...I have to say that trying on Alj''s 3 stone ring vs my solitaire really showed me just how great a finger of bling could be! I am planning on getting 2 sidestones and making a 3 stone ring after the next upgrade because I know my 3c stone won''t happen til 10th anniversary which is oh..8.5 years away!

Other than that a super thin setting or a very wide setting (I have seen both amazingly!)...
 
Could someone post a picture of a bezel or half bezel? I''m not sure what it looks like. Thanks~
 
here''s a collage that reena posted a while back of bezel settings..these all have diamond halo''s but the bezel can be plain metal too..

bezcoll.JPG
 
semi-bezel

3004279.jpg
 
bezel

whitneyboin.jpg
 
Hi Rosy, long time no see!

I think the Ritani settings are great because the bands are so thin that they make the center diamond pop! Have you gone to Bailey Banks and Biddle to try on Ritani rings in person? Here is some I like.

Ritani 111.jpg
 
I have a semibezel. And while I think it does make the stone look a little bigger from a distance, when you look close, it actually makes it look a little smaller. almost oval, because the bezel covers a bit of the stone on the sides. I think small sidestones would do the trick, I'm not sure if they actually make the center look bigger or it's just that that you have more sparkle on your hand but the overall effect is just right.
 
I would add one vote to the sidestones idea.

Rounds are the classic thing to do, perhaps, but sometimes I have heard and tend to subcribe myself to the idea that the different style of faceting on the ''specialized'' sidestone shapes (i.e. those mostly used for sidestones and never single - like baguettes, kites, traps, halfmoons and trillions) work great to allow the center stone to take center stage while still providing finger cover.

Step cuts make great contrast (baguettes are the thinnest, than straight bullet sides and trapezoids are step cut). And trillions with rounds work very well. Pears are very classic and easier to fit with the round edges of the center...

This may sound iffy, but I think it helps that these other shapes are spreadier and somewhat less brilliant than the rounds they flank. For once, these would be less expensive than round sides, but also the visual effect has some merit.

This is just a personal matter of taste, of course. If you have a chance to see or try on such rings, it can''t hurt.

My 2c.


Halos or bezels? I would think those work - the resulting ring is a larger piece and the style never, never looks as if was done precisely to add mass. Not that your 2 carat rock needs allot of help
9.gif



Just IMO
 
I just had my 1.04ct round put into a 3 stone setting and I think it looks a lot bigger now. From a distance all you see is sparkle!

I do think that side stones make the stone appear larger. I had the 1.04 in a solitaire and while it was nice, the side stones added the *wow* factor I was looking for.

I have a family stone set in a wider solitaire and I think it makes it look smaller than it is. I am saving up for a setting with sidestones for that one as well.
 
A bezel is really a great choice, because the entire package looks so much more substantial. If you don''t like a halo, though, I suspect you won''t like a bezel. I agree sidestones might help, again because the entire setting will look bigger, but a plat or white gold bezel gives the illusion of a larger stone by blurring the lines between the stone and the crown.
 
Here''s sundial''s 3 stone with a semi bezal

suehandshot.JPG
 
Wow, I am surprised - I actually disagree with most of the posters. I dropped a 1.5 carat in various settings to see which one it looked biggest in - halo, various sidestone settings, cathedral/channel setting, etc. The thing that made it look the biggest was a completely plain setting and a completely plain band. The sales people, although the other settings were more expensive, agreed with me. I think you need to go to a store and do the same thing I did to figure out what YOU think makes a diamond look the biggest. Jared''s is one place that''s incredibly easy to do this.
 
Thanks for posting the pics & suggestions. I would get a halo if my stone were square or rectangular shaped. The halo in the round just doesn''t look right on my long fingers. & I think Hest88 is right, I don''t really like the bezel & semi-bezels either. I actually visited a local jewerly store on my way home from work today & tried on the bezel & semi-bezels & did not like the way they looked on my finger. Any thoughts on a cathedral type setting, which is supposed to lift the diamond higher up into the air?
 
Date: 1/6/2006 1:26:20 PM
Author: recran
Wow, I am surprised - I actually disagree with most of the posters. I dropped a 1.5 carat in various settings to see which one it looked biggest in - halo, various sidestone settings, cathedral/channel setting, etc. The thing that made it look the biggest was a completely plain setting and a completely plain band. The sales people, although the other settings were more expensive, agreed with me. I think you need to go to a store and do the same thing I did to figure out what YOU think makes a diamond look the biggest. Jared''s is one place that''s incredibly easy to do this.
Click to expand...
Hi recran,
Thanks for the input. Do you mean a plain engagement ring setting & a plain wedding band made your 1.5 stone look the largest? May I ask how wide were the bands & how many prongs on the engagement ring setting?
Thanks!
 
I do think that the higher the diamond the larger the stone can look, aka cathedral on a thin band maybe, 2mm!?
 
Yes, higher set prongs will make the stone appear larger.
 
I agree that higher set prongs make the stone look bigger.
 
I am obsessed with rings and have changed my setting multiple times for this very same reason (now I have a halo and love it
30.gif
)

Just my 2 cents...

1. A cathedral won''t necessarily make your diamond look larger, unless it is a thin band.
2. A bezel does add some size, but it is just metal so I really don''t like that idea.
3. Side stones, I think, make the center stone look smaller. I had a three stone ring (all rounds). .90 center and .10 sidestones, and I did not like it at all. It all just blended together and my center stone was not as pronounced.
4. I would definitely go with a thin, plain engagement ring and a matching wedding band (or a plain eng. ring band a thin wedding band with small .02 or .03 point diamonds. Besides my halo, the original 2 mm plain gold band that my fiance proposed to me with made my diamond look the biggest.

Hope this helps....good luck!
 
Thank''s for the good advice. I wouldn''t want to add side stones, I love having one big diamond. I also agree that a bezel is adding too much metal for my taste. I''ve never seen a cathedral with a thin band, they all seem to be thick, like at least 3 mm & up. Has anyone seen a cathedral with a 2mm band?
 
Rosy,
In all my ring hunting experience, I have never come across a 2mm cathedral band. 3mm is probably the thinnest I have seen. I thought of getting one at one time, had it measured (it was the thinnest one at Borsheims...a HUGE jewelry store here in Omaha), and it was 3mm. I think you would have a tough time finding one of those.
emotion-18.gif
 
Date: 1/7/2006 4:55:54 PM
Author: singer
Rosy,
In all my ring hunting experience, I have never come across a 2mm cathedral band. 3mm is probably the thinnest I have seen. I thought of getting one at one time, had it measured (it was the thinnest one at Borsheims...a HUGE jewelry store here in Omaha), and it was 3mm. I think you would have a tough time finding one of those.
emotion-18.gif
Click to expand...
Hi Rosy! My setting is about 2mm wide, if not a tad over 2mm. Although it's not very wide, it is quite substantial in thickness. The setting is from Precision Set. I normally would not recommend them but if you truly want a 2mm cathedral setting and have trouble finding one, you may want to check out their settings. The setting itself is well made but I simply had problems with them setting my diamond. Here's the thread if you want to see more pictures of this setting: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/its-ready.35903/

I think the thin band tapering towards the center diamond makes the diamond stand out. Also the diamond sits about 8mm off of my finger, which I think is kind of high but I do think this showcases the diamond very well. They did set my diamond as low as possible too. Please keep us posted with what you decide on.

neweringpics-24.jpg
 
New to this but what about......

ring-idea.jpg
 
Leila your ring is just stunning! I love it although I''m trying to save money & not add any sidestones to the setting. Guess what I''m saving for? You guessed it, a 2.50+ carat stone! Poor me has to start all over again because the place I bought it at does not allow more than one trade in. I can buy a small apartment for the $ I''ve spent & am planning to spend on diamonds! Until I get it, I''m looking for a plain band. I will check out Precision Set & see if they have anything similar in a plain band. I do love how your basket is & how it curves around your stone. Just luscious!
 
My first thought was a size 3 or 4 setting would make the stone look massive.
11.gif
Oh how I envy the ladies with thin fingers.
Back to the topic, I think knife edge or settings that are not too flat make the diamond appear larger and pop more. I also think ones that have a great deal of detail are so busy that they can draw the eyes from the stone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top