Settings: High vs. Low

[legallyspoiled]

Recently, I have noticed a lot of discussion regarding how high or low a head is set. I would like to discuss a general discussion to learn more. What are the advantages of setting a head higher? Does it give the illusion that the diamond is bigger? What are the advantages of setting a head lower? Will it make the diamond appear smaller? How difficult is it to adjust the height of a head?

Pictures of examples are always welcome! Feel free to show me the profile and top/down view of your stone.

 

[missydebby]

I know I want lower because I want to be able to get my hands in gloves and do other things in which a higher set might give me some issues. On the other hand, I think setting the diamond high might allow for more light?

 

[legallyspoiled]

Date: 4/19/2010 6:31:52 PM
Author: missydebby
I know I want lower because I want to be able to get my hands in gloves and do other things in which a higher set might give me some issues. On the other hand, I think setting the diamond high might allow for more light?

Hmmm. I wonder how that would effect the color of the stone. My own stone is a K.

 

[violet3]

I believe the higher set head makes the diamond look bigger, but for comfort purposes, I have always preferred lower settings.

 

[Laila619]

I too think higher settings make a diamond look bigger.

 

[tyty333]

I agree with the ladies...higher makes the stone look larger but then you have more chance of knocking it and I wonder if it more likely
to spin then a lower stone if the ring is not so tight on the finger. Mine is set very high and I honestly dont knock it that much but
it does seem to spin a lot during the winter. I dont know if it would spin a lot or not whether the stone was set lower.

Edit - here are some pictures of mine...I got mine 11 years ago before I knew anything about pricescope. I would probably have it set lower
if I did a new setting (but not too low). Sorry these pictures are so big but I'm pulling from another thread and dont feel like resizing.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I like low to medium low b/c I hate catching/knocking my ring on things. Higher makes the diamond look a little bigger, but I think that higher settings aare moften less graceful and fluid...

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 4/19/2010 6:44:55 PM
Author: violet3
I believe the higher set head makes the diamond look bigger, but for comfort purposes, I have always preferred lower settings.

ditto except I also have aesthetic reasons for preferring lower settings

 

[HappyNewLife]

i think it also depends on the setting--- i find that the pics of half-bezel settings (which are very low) make even .5ct diamonds look really big. also, the Lucida style or X-prong settings I''ve seen seem to make the diamond look larger (also not a super tall setting). maybe a wide band makes for a larger-looking diamond?

 

[yssie]

Date: 4/19/2010 6:36:06 PM
Author: legallyspoiled

Date: 4/19/2010 6:31:52 PM
Author: missydebby
I know I want lower because I want to be able to get my hands in gloves and do other things in which a higher set might give me some issues. On the other hand, I think setting the diamond high might allow for more light?

Hmmm. I wonder how that would effect the color of the stone. My own stone is a K.

A high setting would help a poorly cut stone look better as it would allow more light in from the pavilion. A poorly cut stone will look more sparkly and "whiter" if it returns more light.

On its own though I don''t think there''s any correlation between setting height and colour - in fact, I would expect just the opposite - a higher setting would allow a casual observer a better view of the pavilion - the part of the diamond that really highlights its colour...



I thought I wanted LOW, I was wrong. I didn''t mind how it looked from face-up, as I don''t find that higher settings make stones look bigger to me, but I didn''t like the fact that even the thinnest of wedding bands partially obscured my view of the culet.

 

[yssie]

my old - low centrestone

 

[yssie]

this view really shows how it looks "squat" on the finger, which I actually rather like

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 4/19/2010 8:10:40 PM
Author: yssie
this view really shows how it looks ''squat'' on the finger, which I actually rather like

I definetly like the squatty look!

 

[swingirl]

High settings remind of the 60s and 70s when smaller diamonds (.25ct and less) were the norm (well, at least in my circle) and were usually positioned very high in a tiffany setting. Who were they kidding--it did not make the stone look better, whiter or larger. But just about every ering I saw was like that, where the prongs were almost vertical. It scarred me for life and now I prefer the low-set squatty look.

 

[lovemybling]

I thought I liked lower settings then I had a new stone set in my setting and had a custom basket made. It sits higher than I planned but it only took me a day or two to get use to it. I haven''t hit it on anything (yet). looking down it it doesn''t look that high. But as you can see on profile it is quite high.

 

[legallyspoiled]

All very interesting information! Check out a thread I started under Show Me the Bling that has some pretty cool comparison pictures!

WF is working on a legato shared prong melee for me. The stone is a 1.3 K - ACA. From the photos the legato head appears to be set pretty low. I think that I have heard two theories so far. Theory #1 is that the diamond will appear whiter if it is set higher because more light will reach the pavilion. Theory #2 is that the height of the setting will not effect the appearance (i.e. color, size, etc) at all.

 

[4ever]

Date: 4/19/2010 7:30:54 PM
Author: Bella_mezzo
I like low to medium low b/c I hate catching/knocking my ring on things. Higher makes the diamond look a little bigger, but I think that higher settings aare moften less graceful and fluid...

I agree with this, I just find higher set stones less visually appealing, I like very low/medium low settings best.

 

[beezygal]

I like high setting. Tacori 2561 sets pretty high. My FF said it''s like "soccer ball". Whatever he says, I just love how it makes my 1ct looks bigger and stands out more.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 4/19/2010 10:46:13 PM
Author: legallyspoiled
All very interesting information! Check out a thread I started under Show Me the Bling that has some pretty cool comparison pictures!

WF is working on a legato shared prong melee for me. The stone is a 1.3 K - ACA. From the photos the legato head appears to be set pretty low. I think that I have heard two theories so far. Theory #1 is that the diamond will appear whiter if it is set higher because more light will reach the pavilion. Theory #2 is that the height of the setting will not effect the appearance (i.e. color, size, etc) at all.

It will not affect the appearance of color. I think Yssie has hit the nail on the head -- the only thing a higher setting will do is reveal more of the pavilion to your view which could change the subjective impression of the color of the diamond.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

I don''t think that high settings make a diamond look bigger, they just make them look higher. I much prefer low settings.

Personal choice, though.

 

[RaiKai]

I think high settings just make a diamond or other stone look higher set..ha.

I think things like band width or plain vs pave or certain prongs or bezels make a bigger difference than height.

I prefer low to medium height set for myself...for lifestyle, comfort and appearances. Just do not like the look of a stone *perched* on my finger for my own hands.Though I also prefer *smaller* stones for these reasons too!

 

[tyty333]

Here are two 5 stone rings. Which stones looks bigger to you?

The "smaller" looking ring is a Facets collections ring which sets very low to the finger. One ring is a .81 tcw and the other is .80 tcw
(basically same size). I can vouch its not just the anlge of the picture that makes the one 5 stone ring look bigger. This is how they
compared in real life. Can you figure out which ring I decided to keep?

So...IMO higher setting stones will look larger. Here is the side view of the "bigger" ring. It sets higher but not too high.

 

[legallyspoiled]

WOW! Visibly, that is a huge difference!!! Is it set much higher??

 

[tyty333]

Here is somewhat of a side shot I can show you of the facets ring. If you go to there website you can see another view that shows how
much (or little) metal there is under the diamonds.

http://thefacetscollection.com/item.cfm?item_id=2428

 

[Lola0918]

My 1st ER was a 1.00 ct Princess cut set in a cathedral channel setting. I had the head changed out to accomodate a larger stone which made my stone sit higher. It was an unbelievable difference! It looked so much bigger and people couldn''t believe it was "only" 1 ct. It didn''t spin nor was it an inconvenience for me and I lead a pretty active lifestyle. I prefer a high stone, just my own preference! I love diamonds to be on display!

 

[legallyspoiled]

Date: 4/21/2010 10:22:16 AM
Author: Lola0918
My 1st ER was a 1.00 ct Princess cut set in a cathedral channel setting. I had the head changed out to accomodate a larger stone which made my stone sit higher. It was an unbelievable difference! It looked so much bigger and people couldn''t believe it was ''only'' 1 ct. It didn''t spin nor was it an inconvenience for me and I lead a pretty active lifestyle. I prefer a high stone, just my own preference! I love diamonds to be on display!

Interesting. I think that cathedral settings do help disguise a highly set stone. If I were to set a stone high, I would probably look for a cathedral setting.

 

[lmb2011]

Date: 4/19/2010 8:29:31 PM
Author: CharmyPoo

Date: 4/19/2010 8:10:40 PM
Author: yssie
this view really shows how it looks ''squat'' on the finger, which I actually rather like

I definetly like the squatty look!

I''m down with the "squat" too.