Shank width - 2.3mm on size 4 finger?

[lostinblue]

Hi, I’m working with a custom jeweller at the moment, and he’s suggesting that the shank needs to be 2.3mm at least to make the design work. My ring size is 3.75 to 4, and the rock is 1.35ct.

I read that 2.3mm and above would he considered a thick shank, but I prefer a thinner, daintier look. I was thinking around 2mm before.

Would be great if you can post pictures of your engagement rings with approx dimensions. Thanks in advance!

 

[dk168]

It depends on your personal preferences.

I don't like thin shanks due to my chunky chubby size 8.5 ring finger and 10 at least for my middle finger, as I don't like the tied up roasting joint ready for the oven look with flesh bulging on both sides.

Hence I prefer about 4mm at the top.

It also depends if you are hard on your hands. I have seen thin width shanks that are deep to provide extra strength to compensate which I believe is a good idea.

Have fun choosing your ring.

DK

 

[Ally T]

My finger is a 5.25 & the shank on my pear (avatar) is 2.5mm. My plain wedding ring is 3mm. They are the exact same dimensions, just one slightly wider, and for me it is perfect. I'm quite hard on my hands & have damaged many rings over the years, but not the pear.

It also depends on how long your fingers are? Mine are quite long & can take the wider bands.

There is always a risk of a thinner shank becoming mis-shapen over time. And I think at 1.35ct, your stone might look a little off balance if the shank is too thin & might look top heavy. But we are ALL different & what pleases one, will not please another!

Remember jewellers know what they're talking about too. There are always reasons they suggest doing something the way they do.

Can't wait to see the finished product!

 

[mrs-b]

Hi @lostinblue -

Can you tell us how tall you are? Aesthetically, the length of your finger will make more impact than the size, when it comes to width.

Next - are you doing a solitaire? Can you tell us a little about the design?

1.35 is a lovely size stone ( -is it a round, or some other shape? That, too, makes a difference- ) and you need the band to be in proportion to the stone. Are you looking for a light, elegant look? That *tends* to be the most popular look, but can you pls confirm if that's what you're after?

For safety, there's 2 ways to make a ring sturdy - band width - but also thickness. If you have a band that's 2mm wide, but only 1mm thick, it will be far less secure than a band 2mm wide, but, say, 1.8mm thick. A lot of jewelers do 1.5mm for thickness. I always have my rings made to 2mm thick and have *never* had a problem with any ring being bent out of shape.

Lastly, for myself, I tend to go with 2.2mm at the back, tapering at the front as the band reaches the head of the ring. Normally they taper to 1.8mm wide. However - and this is important - where the band tapers in width, it deepens in thickness, so, altho when seen from above the band tapers, the volume of the band is still roughly the same.

Here's what I mean....

Here's a photo of a solitaire of mine. It was 2.2mm at the back and tapers to 1.8mm at the front:



Here's the ring from the underside, so you can see the taper from that angle also. This is not actually a great ring to show this example as the diamond is large and obscures a lot of the band, but hopefully it's good enough that you can see some degree of taper. It's not super pronounced, but enough to be elegant:



So. Hopefully you can see the gentle taper in the width of the band. But here's what I mean about the band getting thicker to compensate for it becoming more narrow:



So as it reaches the head, it deepens and becomes more substantial in depth / thickness, meaning the narrower band doesn't compromise the integrity of the shank.

This diamond, btw, is 3.61ct, so there's no need for a wide band, just because the stone is large, and 2.3mm with a 1.35ct stone is more than sufficient.

Were it me, I'd stay with the dimensions I normally prefer - 2.2mm at the back, 1.8mm at the front - between 1.8 and 2mm for thickness, growing deeper as the shank reaches and joins the head.

If you look on James Allen, or Blue Nile, you'll see that a LOT of the rings are 2.2, 2, or even 1.8mm in width, so the whole 'this needs to be 2.3mm' argument really isn't correct.

Are you working with a jeweler highly skilled in fine work? Just because he's a jeweler doesn't make him a good jeweler, and just because he might have been a jeweler for a long time, still doesn't make him experienced in fine work. "It has to be 2.3mm" concerns me particularly when it comes to the prong work - which, in my opinion, is what really makes or breaks the look of a piece. It will be hugely disappointing if you're picturing dainty claw prongs and he turned out a piece with big clompers for prongs. Do you have any photos of his work? Have you discussed what sort of prongs you want and are you convinced he can produce what you want? How did you arrive at having him as your jeweler? And is this your engagement ring? It's an important piece of jewelry, and you want it to be right.

Please share some photos of what you're looking for, and pls answer the questions I asked above, and we'll see if we've got anything else we can contribute.

And if you decide that you need help or recommendations for someone else, just ask - we've got a great catalogue of experienced jewelers here who each have their own aesthetic.

Good luck!

 

[lostinblue]

I asked to have a tiny emerald embedded inside the band under the diamond (my SO birthstone), and he said that in order to compensate for the base with that “circle” (my words, not sure how to explain it but hopefully the illustration helps) so that I can minimize the gap when I wear the ring with a wedding band, the shank will have to be tapered from 2mm at the bottom to 2.3mm at the top, close to the diamond.
He said having the shank as 2.3mm would allow a more gradual sloping so that it blends in with the head, but from the CADs given that wasn’t the case.

The emerald is meant to be a symbol for myself and I was expecting it to be small and embedded flat into the band. I didn’t expect it to require that round base at the bottom of the head and for it to jut out so much. If I asked him to minimize the round thing or not have it, would they be able to embed the tiny emerald?

I don’t think I am requesting for a particularly difficult design, it’s quite simple. I was hoping to be able to achieve the look I want without compromise.

Here are the CADs we received:

 

[lostinblue]

Hi @lostinblue -

Can you tell us how tall you are? Aesthetically, the length of your finger will make more impact than the size, when it comes to width.

Next - are you doing a solitaire? Can you tell us a little about the design?

1.35 is a lovely size stone ( -is it a round, or some other shape? That, too, makes a difference- ) and you need the band to be in proportion to the stone. Are you looking for a light, elegant look? That *tends* to be the most popular look, but can you pls confirm if that's what you're after?

For safety, there's 2 ways to make a ring sturdy - band width - but also thickness. If you have a band that's 2mm wide, but only 1mm thick, it will be far less secure than a band 2mm wide, but, say, 1.8mm thick. A lot of jewelers do 1.5mm for thickness. I always have my rings made to 2mm thick and have *never* had a problem with any ring being bent out of shape.

Lastly, for myself, I tend to go with 2.2mm at the back, tapering at the front as the band reaches the head of the ring. Normally they taper to 1.8mm wide. However - and this is important - where the band tapers in width, it deepens in thickness, so, altho when seen from above the band tapers, the volume of the band is still roughly the same.

Here's what I mean....

Here's a photo of a solitaire of mine. It was 2.2mm at the back and tapers to 1.8mm at the front:



Here's the ring from the underside, so you can see the taper from that angle also. This is not actually a great ring to show this example as the diamond is large and obscures a lot of the band, but hopefully it's good enough that you can see some degree of taper. It's not super pronounced, but enough to be elegant:



So. Hopefully you can see the gentle taper in the width of the band. But here's what I mean about the band getting thicker to compensate for it becoming more narrow:



So as it reaches the head, it deepens and becomes more substantial in depth / thickness, meaning the narrower band doesn't compromise the integrity of the shank.


This diamond, btw, is 3.61ct, so there's no need for a wide band, just because the stone is large, and 2.3mm with a 1.35ct stone is more than sufficient.

Were it me, I'd stay with the dimensions I normally prefer - 2.2mm at the back, 1.8mm at the front - between 1.8 and 2mm for thickness, growing deeper as the shank reaches and joins the head.

If you look on James Allen, or Blue Nile, you'll see that a LOT of the rings are 2.2, 2, or even 1.8mm in width, so the whole 'this needs to be 2.3mm' argument really isn't correct.

Are you working with a jeweler highly skilled in fine work? Just because he's a jeweler doesn't make him a good jeweler, and just because he might have been a jeweler for a long time, still doesn't make him experienced in fine work. "It has to be 2.3mm" concerns me particularly when it comes to the prong work - which, in my opinion, is what really makes or breaks the look of a piece. It will be hugely disappointing if you're picturing dainty claw prongs and he turned out a piece with big clompers for prongs. Do you have any photos of his work? Have you discussed what sort of prongs you want and are you convinced he can produce what you want? How did you arrive at having him as your jeweler? And is this your engagement ring? It's an important piece of jewelry, and you want it to be right.

Please share some photos of what you're looking for, and pls answer the questions I asked above, and we'll see if we've got anything else we can contribute.

And if you decide that you need help or recommendations for someone else, just ask - we've got a great catalogue of experienced jewelers here who each have their own aesthetic.

Good luck!

Thank you for the picture! I really like the way your band slopes up near the rock in that manner. I was actually considering asking the jeweller to have my ring slope that way too.

I’m 5’4” (165cm). I do like the look of a thinner band, and I’m ok with 2mm on my finger. Anything wider seems a bit much for me.. but I haven’t had the opportunity to try a 2.3mm band on me specifically.

I’ve asked the jeweller to make the prongs and prong heads as thin as possible, since the CADs shown felt a bit thick, and they said they’ll polish it down as much as possible but is concerned about stability. I just want square prongs that are rounded at the edges, hopefully it’s not difficult for him to do.

 

[lostinblue]

I talked to the jeweller, and I am thinking this must be a common problem.. I want the Tiffany style head, and the base is round which protrudes out. I was hoping to minimize the gap between the e-ring and wedding band, and in order to do that, I need to have the thickness to 2.3mm. That all makes sense, I think must be a common problem for this style. I guess I'll just have to have the wax created for my design and see if it's ok on my finger.

 

[Moonie]

Hmm perhaps I'm not understanding the issue correctly, but couldn't the jeweler set the diamond a little bit higher to minimize the gap between the e-ring and the wedding band? That way there wouldn't be a gap between the "donut" of the base of the basket and your wedding band. I'm also a size 4 and I personally would prefer a thinner band than 2.3. My jeweler set my ring to be 1.6 mm and I can start to tell that it feels a bit thicker at 2 mm. Just my personal 2c!

 

[Lykame]

Could you potentially set the emerald into the underside of the doughnut? I've seen that done before. If there was a hole all the way through though, possibly there would be some colour reflection into your diamond, so I'm not totally sure that's a viable option. Worth thinking about anyway, because it might give you a way to have a thinner shank without the compromise of stability.

I'm 5 foot 3 (161cm) and used to have a ring that had a 1.65 centre stone with a pavé set shank. The stones were 7.5 pointers so it was about 2.3 mm. I'm a size 5.5 (which is a tad loose).

I'll be honest, I hated the proportions of it. The actual shank was a lovely width on my finger, but I felt it was too wide against my central stone. I'll see if I can find a picture.

 

[Lykame]

Ok, please forgive the poor quality - I was forced to obtain using screenshots from other threads - but here's a few:





I know it's not a solitaire shank but hopefully it gives some idea.

 

[Lykame]

Platinum engagement ring set with a Crafted by Infinity diamond with a hidden emerald - Durham Rose

www.durhamrose.com

Oh I saw this and this is what I meant! Just thought I would show an example.

 

[lostinblue]

Platinum engagement ring set with a Crafted by Infinity diamond with a hidden emerald - Durham Rose

www.durhamrose.com

Oh I saw this and this is what I meant! Just thought I would show an example.

Wow thanks for this! It's pretty much exactly the same thing as I've requested for, except the band being knife edge.

 

[lostinblue]

Could you potentially set the emerald into the underside of the doughnut? I've seen that done before. If there was a hole all the way through though, possibly there would be some colour reflection into your diamond, so I'm not totally sure that's a viable option. Worth thinking about anyway, because it might give you a way to have a thinner shank without the compromise of stability.

I'm 5 foot 3 (161cm) and used to have a ring that had a 1.65 centre stone with a pavé set shank. The stones were 7.5 pointers so it was about 2.3 mm. I'm a size 5.5 (which is a tad loose).

I'll be honest, I hated the proportions of it. The actual shank was a lovely width on my finger, but I felt it was too wide against my central stone. I'll see if I can find a picture.

Yes, that is the plan, to have it underneath the stone. It won't have a hole through so there wouldn't be colour reflection. It looks like the problem is actually the doughnut thing - it's needed for the Tiffany crown because of the way the prongs connect to the doughnut, as explained clearly by my jeweller.

 

[Moonie]

Wow thanks for this! It's pretty much exactly the same thing as I've requested for, except the band being knife edge.

Jean Dousset does this as well!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[caf]

Show your jeweler these photos. I’m not a bench but it seems like you want the stone set in a bezel (which is actually the donut). Which doesn’t, at least in these photos, require a wider band. And you should, with a good bench, be able to get great prongs that you love that don’t compromise “stability.”
Take some time on Pricescope and look at rings and prongs. Maybe ask admin if you can move this to Rocky Talk and change title to Need CAD help please! You’ll probably get more cad help there!

 

[caf]

Also I’m very far from a CAD expert. But the CAD doesn’t look like what you’ve asked for. Where are the CAD measurements, the CAD showing the emerald in the donut, etc. Most CADs posted here show measurements, the taper, all elements requested by the customer. Yours doesn’t.

Ring CAD review

Hello all, I am very much new to looking at CADs and figuring out what exactly is going on (especially if the proportions are right!). I am setting a 6.6mm octagonal shaped sapphire. I wanted the head to be in platinum and the rest in 18 k yellow gold. I am not 100% sure on the round...

www.pricescope.com

see for example this recent CAD post. Compare it to yours!

oh and @mrs-b is an expert in creating gorgeous jewelry. Truly. Answer her questions and study her post.

 

[Lykame]

I agree with @caf. I don't think what you're asking for sounds too difficult and I really think you should be able to get it without integrity issues. I'm not sure what is concerning your current jeweller and I hope they are able to meet your expectations, but I would not persevere with them if they seem unable to meet your requirements.

 

[caf]

I agree with @caf. I don't think what you're asking for sounds too difficult and I really think you should be able to get it without integrity issues. I'm not sure what is concerning your current jeweller and I hope they are able to meet your expectations, but I would not persevere with them if they seem unable to meet your requirements.

This^.

 

[daisygrl]

My ring is a size 4 (my finger 3.5) and I had my custom setting done with these measurements: 1.8mm wide (BUT it is tapered - so it has a "wall" or it deepens in thickness (I wanted 1.8mm for the diamond to appear bigger/accentuate her rather than the band as mentally, I feel like thicker band would make her look not as big?) Anyway, my setting has soft (for comfort) knife edges and is 2.5mm in the back - it does not look as thick it because of the knife edge design.

 

[lostinblue]

My ring is a size 4 (my finger 3.5) and I had my custom setting done with these measurements: 1.8mm wide (BUT it is tapered - so it has a "wall" or it deepens in thickness (I wanted 1.8mm for the diamond to appear bigger/accentuate her rather than the band as mentally, I feel like thicker band would make her look not as big?) Anyway, my setting has soft (for comfort) knife edges and is 2.5mm in the back - it does not look as thick it because of the knife edge design.

Thanks for the pictures! Do you wearing your wedding band with the e-ring? Just curious how the gap looks

 

[lostinblue]

I agree with @caf. I don't think what you're asking for sounds too difficult and I really think you should be able to get it without integrity issues. I'm not sure what is concerning your current jeweller and I hope they are able to meet your expectations, but I would not persevere with them if they seem unable to meet your requirements.

We’ve already put a deposit down, so not sure if we can change jewelers now.

 

[daisygrl]

Thanks for the pictures! Do you wearing your wedding band with the e-ring? Just curious how the gap looks

I do not but if you want to wear it, you can always ask for a higher donut and thus, creating a "flush" fit.

 

[caf]

We’ve already put a deposit down, so not sure if we can change jewelers now.

I don’t think anyone is saying change jewelers. But it is your ring and you should get what you want. Listen to your gut. Ask for help here with the CAD. Ask your bench (jeweler) for the CAD measurements. Look at other rings and CADS and determine what you like and don’t like. I’m just worried that you will end up with a ring you don’t like!

 

[lostinblue]

Hi everyone, just wanted to close the loop on this thread with pictures of the ring
I think the shank width turned out to be quite acceptable on my finger.

 

[Ally T]

Hi everyone, just wanted to close the loop on this thread with pictures of the ring
I think the shank width turned out to be quite acceptable on my finger.

Oh, it's gorgeous