Settings - What Ya Got???

[mjw3180]

Ok, so thanks to everyone who helped me yesterday in picking out a diamond-here is the link to it:

http://www.bluenile.com/diamonds_details.asp?__fun_frm=i&track=btntext_select&elem=img&pid=LD01073694&filter_id=0



Now comes the next step-what type of setting do people think is best for a radiant cut? In terms of making the stone look bigger? It is a 1.24 radiant but obviously I want to maximize how it looks on my g/f (she has thin med/long fingers btw).

So what are you experiences? Should I go cathedral setting because that looks like ti rasies it up? Standard ring setting? Contoured? Tapered? 3mm width or 4mm width? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Ellen]

Take a peek here.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Hi! Both of my radiants are set with trilliants as side stones. It''s a great combination.

 

[mjw3180]

Thanks for the info! I think I am gogin with just a solitaire at first and thats kinda of what I was lookign to get some info on. You know does a cathedral show a stone as being bigger? Does a smaller band 3mm vs. 4mm make a big differences, things like that..any help appreciated. Thanks-this site rocks! pun intended

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/15/2007 10:07:45 AM
Author: mjw3180
Thanks for the info! I think I am gogin with just a solitaire at first and thats kinda of what I was lookign to get some info on. You know does a cathedral show a stone as being bigger? Does a smaller band 3mm vs. 4mm make a big differences, things like that..any help appreciated. Thanks-this site rocks! pun intended

I think you need to find these examples of rings and try them on, because while we can give opinions, your finger and it''s size/shape can come into play here too!

While a cathedral does tend to sit the stone up higher (hence making it look bigger), they''re wider too, so I don''t know if that would kinda negate things...

I''d go try a bunch on.

 

[mjw3180]

Well the only problem with that is that my g/fisn''t takign part in any of this-it is all on me to make these decisions and I am not sure my fingers woudl be a good indicator lol

 

[Ellen]

oops Didn''t read the thread, as I might have found out you are HE, not SHE. lol

Hmmm, well, in that case, I''d probably go with a thinner band, as it''s a safer bet I think to make the stone "pop" more.

I would do a search on here for "radiants", lots of threads will come up, and I wouldn''t be surprised if your quandry was mentioned. You''re not the first one on here to want the stone to look bigger.

 

[phoenixgirl]

My personal preference is for a thinner (3mm or less) width on the engagement ring if your goal is to maximize how big it looks. The thinner the band, the larger the stone will look in comparison.

I like their tapered cathedral setting ok, but I don''t really like the regular cathedral setting.

Here are some pictures of a 1.24 carat radiant in a platinum cathedral setting:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/1-24-radiant-from-erd.28917/

 

[elle_chris]

I agree that a thinner band "may" help the stone look bigger but I believe that works best on thin fingers.
If she has larger fingers i''ve found (at least when i was trying on settings) that a thicker band with the stone set a bit higher up works best.
I also think that a thin band on larger fingers emphasizes the finger size rather than the ring.
But hey, that''s just my opinion.