shape
carat
color
clarity

Sholdt semi-bezel vs WF Keystone

lioness

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
793
I never thought I'd like semi-bezels until I saw handshots of the Sholdt setting. Now I'm intrigued. Which one do you prefer and why?
 
I like them both, but for different reasons. I like the lush sinuousness of the Scholdt design, and the straight forward-ness of the keystone. There have been a few WF keystone rings posted in SMTB - I think the design gives the Scholdt semi-bezel a run for its money.

(you might want to provide some links or pictures :wink2: )
 
I have the Sholdt semi-bezel in 18WG. I love my setting! The metal is exquisite, it looks like liquid. If there's a jeweler near you that carries the brand go try on the rings. I ordered my setting thru Pearlmans, they might be able to send you a sample setting if there aren't any jewelers carrying the brand near you.
 
woofmama|1420295526|3811276 said:
I have the Sholdt semi-bezel in 18WG. I love my setting! The metal is exquisite, it looks like liquid. If there's a jeweler near you that carries the brand go try on the rings. I ordered my setting thru Pearlmans, they might be able to send you a sample setting if there aren't any jewelers carrying the brand near you.
Liquid is how I always think it looks too!

Sholdt semi bezel hands down is my favorite. Its fluid and substantial while still feeling feminine and not too industrial.
 
I do like the overall look of the WF Keystone (http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...half-bezel-solitaire-engagement-ring-1103.htm) and in fact, at one time, I considered it for a setting for myself - I ended up choosing the WF True Love semi-bezel (http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/true-love-diamond-engagement-ring-510.htm) as I preferred its solid metal shank... The Keystone shank is mostly hollowed-out with solid metal just at the bottom 1/3 section and I find this to be not as comfortable for long-term daily wear.

I've tried on several Sholdt rings, including two half-bezel styles, and the rings are incredibly beautiful, elegant, and comfortable - I find the workmanship and finish top-notch. Personally, although I am a big WF fan, if I were going for a half-bezel design now, I'd definitely choose Sholdt.
 
Sholdt, and not just because I have it. Like others have said, it's just more fluid.
 
VRBeauty|1420276030|3811241 said:
I like them both, but for different reasons. I like the lush sinuousness of the Scholdt design, and the straight forward-ness of the keystone. There have been a few WF keystone rings posted in SMTB - I think the design gives the Scholdt semi-bezel a run for its money.

(you might want to provide some links or pictures :wink2: )

Good idea. Here goes:

Sholdt: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/sholdt-semi-bezel-with-wf-1-5-aca.127162/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/sholdt-semi-bezel-with-wf-1-5-aca.127162/[/URL]

Keystone: http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/solitaire/keystone-half-bezel-solitaire-engagement-ring-1103.htm
 
Semi-bezel owners, does the design make a round stone look like an oval?
 
I prefer the Sholdt. It's so elegant and graceful.
 
The Scholdt just can't be beat!
 
lioness said:
Semi-bezel owners, does the design make a round stone look like an oval?

No. My Sholdt has a very thin (semi) bezel.

Thing with Sholdt is, this particular design seems to have a few versions- mostly it's the profile and how low/high the stone sits.

I don't know if you've seen this thread or not, but it gives you an idea of the slightly different versions. Scroll down for pics.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/bn-trellis-vs-sholdt-semi-bezel.167145/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/bn-trellis-vs-sholdt-semi-bezel.167145/[/URL]
 
Another vote for the sholdt- it's just so classy.
 
marymm|1420302530|3811309 said:
...I preferred its solid metal shank... The Keystone shank is mostly hollowed-out with solid metal just at the bottom 1/3 section and I find this to be not as comfortable for long-term daily wear.
marymm brings up a very valid point about comfort of those hollowed-out settings. I have a couple like that and they are uncomfortable after couple of hours of wear. The side walls leave deep marks on my fingers, sort of like rails. Just based on that, I'd go with Sholdt semi-bezel instead of WF.

elle_chris said:
Thing with Sholdt is, this particular design seems to have a few versions- mostly it's the profile and how low/high the stone sits.l
I'm a huge fan Sholdt design but ended up getting Adwar semi-bezel because of this what elle_chris brings up about design inconsistencies. Adwar was going to look exactly the same as in the catalog plus it cost a lot less.
 
Sholdt!
 
Sholdt just does this design so right, there's really no other comparison to Sholdt for this!
 
Lioness - glad you found the pictures helpful.

I was lucky because there was a store that carried samples with the diamond size that I wanted. Once I put the sample on my hand, I had to have it. :love: My finished ring came back looking exactly like the sample.

To answer your question honestly, I don't think it makes the stone look oval and I've only had two people in the last year ask if it was oval or round. Plus, that was before they put on their reading glasses. :lol:

However, the semi-bezel definitely changes the look. For a fair comparison, here's a picture of the same stone in the BGD 6 prong setting when I first got it. I'm glad I got the semi-bezel though - the peace of mind is worth it to me. I can wear it around dogs and kids without worrying. My little guy ran full-speed into the prongs on my other cathedral wedding set one day and it left a little imprint on his head for about an hour!

img_6574.jpg
 
NewBling - the stone looks wonderful in both settings, but the Sholdt is just so unique and beautiful.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top