Size of the diamond in relation to setting and finger size...

[dmickey28]

I don''t know if anyone will be able to answer this but thought I would try!

I am curious about what a .78 carat diamond will look like in a thicker contoured setting.

I have a ring size of 6.5 or a slightly smaller and the band is 3.8mm wide. I have a .78 carat diamond with measurements of 6.00x6.01x3.67 mm. Any idea if this setting will "appear" too big for the smaller diamond?????? Not a big fan of the classic tiffany setting, too thin of a band, but am worried about the diamond not standing out....

The diamond is .78, H, VS1, ideal cut, Depth: 61.1 Table: 55 it ranked a 1.5 on the HAC....

What do you think?

 

[valeria101]

That's no small stone...

Do you already have the setting, or just the weddingband and loose diamond... I can't tell from your post.


It may not help much if I just say what I would think about the respective ring project. I know that the US sensitiveness about the "big diamond" issue somewhat escapes me. Ring design is another matter though.

The relative sizes of stone, setting (mostly the width of the band and 'head' if the ring has some other design than the usual 4-6 prongs) and finger is what gives the overall impression on the size of the jewel. Most people would notice that a 2mm band is "too small" even if you have small fingers - the look is just striking relative to the 4-5mm usual. Same for a 10mm wide ring. I feel that a substantial setting is a great way to showcase a stone that is decidedly smaller than the finger it sits on: the ring stands out by design and attracts attention on the stone. Otherwise, using a very 'standard' setting is the best way to help people "calibrate" the actual diameter of the stone and compare with the dozens of similar rings they know about. This is impossible with an unusual design or ring size. Again, the logic of making rings thinner so that stones look "bigger" relative to them is not my preference at all: thee whole look just says "material savings" to me. Of course, there are inspired designs of every imaginable size and flavor ! What I wrote is just my "rule of thumb" - what I am looking for when trying rings on and drawing mine for having them made...

 

[Hest88]

I agree with Valeria. I've heard that smaller rings allow the stone to stand out, but I'm always observed the opposite. When I see a stone in a wide-band or a bezel setting, especially if it's a white metal, the entire thing looks more substantial. I'm less concerned with how big or small the stone looks and am usually more impressed with how big the entire ring looks on a woman's finger. A relatively small stone on a Tiffany-type setting just seems to shout how small it is in comparison to the rest of the bare finger.

 

[dbgaap]

I've been wondering the same thing about stone size, setting style and overall aesthetic effect.
It's been quite a challenge to figure out what I want in the way of an e-ring. I love the many different looks, but I can't carry most of them off.
So, I've ruled out the vintage look and the side-stone look, and now it's narrowed down to these options:

a solitaire with the biggest prettiest diamond we can find in our budget
or
a smaller stone set in a heavier ring- like the Halfbezel Heavy Shank by le, (sold at Whiteflash.com) see link:

http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Solitaire/Halfbezel-Heavy-Shank-by-Le_690.htm#

From looking at pictures, I think smaller stones need the heavier ring to give a nice substantial appearance. (For me anyway, because I am tall)

We're going ring-shopping this weekend. I know one thing, I loved the radiant cut until I tried one on. It looked clunky on me. It just wasn't graceful or pretty.

Speaking of choices, should I focus on different characteristics in a diamond depending on whether it will be set in a semi-bezel vs. a diamond set in a solitaire?
...hope that question makes sense....

 

[DavidEmslie]

This is what it would look like with a 3.8mm band


David Emslie

Designer of fine Jewelry

View attachment feb27pic1.jpg

 

[DavidEmslie]

This is with a 5mm band, a little bit can change the dynamics alot.

I did each of these photos with the correct preportions for your stone, finger size ect to give you an Idea. Such a ring would be easy to make.

The pics speak for them selves, no prong settings are the way to go, you can put your hands in pockets still

David Emslie

Designer of fine jewelry

View attachment feb27pic2.jpg

 

[valeria101]

I could never argue against a bezel setting: it is my favorite style over anything else, and the only I am wearing

In the design you mention, the band has about the same width as the diameter of the stone - which I find lovely.

The better a diamond's cut the less important keeping that setting "opened" is - most liget would come and go through the crown of the stone anyway.

There is no shortage of bezel designs - although most are not complete bezels: those are better made for the respective stone (and thus harder to sell off-the rack for non-calibrated stones...). With all the versions (including the few below) around, making your own seems very reasonable: I could never decide !

 

[dbgaap]

Oh my, those half-bezel settings are unusual and attractive.
I never thought I'd want to mix yellow and white gold, but those examples got my interest.
Are they custom-made? Or can you tell me where to find out more about them?

I am quite leery of getting anything custom-made because I don't feel specific enough about what I want (yet, anyway).

I need to see it on my hand to be sure if I like it.

I am pretty sure we'll get the stone from one of the popular ps vendors because you just can't beat the quality for the price.
Also, I appreciate the straight talk. I've been in all the local high-end jewelry stores and they just can't resist meddling with my opinions. I guess I am their favorite kind of customer - I don't really know what I want and boyfriend wants to make me happy.
The magic combination.
For example, I am leaning towards I-J color. I love the warmth and they are a great value. When I asked to see 'J' stones, the guy brought out a 'J' and an 'F'. I liked the 'J' better but he kept talking it down, eventually persuading me to go no lower than an 'H'.
I've recovered from that and I'm back to liking warm colors. I think the gold around a warm colored stone would look awesome.
I wear mostly sterling silver or white gold jewelry, so liking gold is a big departure for me.
Oh well! It's fun looking!!

 

[dbgaap]

sorry, dmickey28! I just realized I'm probably not using good forum etiquette.
You started the thread and I just barged in with my own questions.
I'm in sorta the same boat as you except we haven't selected a stone yet.

 

[LadyJ]

I have been concerned about this as well. I don't like the Tiffany style settings with the really thin bands. I like a thicker heaftier looking band but have been worried about how it will look with the size of stone I get. I was looking at photos on here and that helped me some.

 

[Griffin]

>I am quite leery of getting anything custom-made because I don't feel specific enough about what I want (yet, anyway).
>I need to see it on my hand to be sure if I like it.


dbgaap, you can do both; some designers can not only make renderings of rings like Dave just did to give you an idea, but when you have a design picked out a few of us have equipment that can actually generate a full-scale model (usually out of a form of plastic) that you can put on and wear. The stones are usually just snapped into place, and you have an actual piece to try on and see if you like it or compare it with other models.
More importantly you can make any changes before you decide!

Although not common yet as these things can cost as much as a small house currently and the software as much as a car, I expect it to be more common in the future - even to the point of B&M's evolving into generating models at the counter if for no reason other than it would be a service that was a unique value-add to justify thier premium in the on-line age, and one that would be hard act for internet vendors to follow...

 

[dbgaap]

Griffin,
Well, what will they think of next!
I don't think I'll need quite that much reassurance!
A decent drawing or computer-generated rendering will suffice.
Today, I saw a gorgeous semi-bezel at Nordstrom.
The best I could describe it is like the Tiffany L'Etoile, except the band wasn't the same width all the way around. It was wider at the head (almost as wide as the diameter of the stone) and got narrower as it curved around the back of the finger.
The tapered band, combined with the .70 stone, made the ring too dainty for me.
However, I think a ring with a band of at least 5mm all the way around is what I'll want to go with a stone that I expect will be about 6mm.

I'm sort of breaking away from the size thing. After much introspection, I am leaning towards something very classic and tasteful and "me".

I really thought I'd love a big fat diamond, but I'm shifting away from 'size matters' to 'PROPORTION matters'.

Basically, I travel in different circles for different purposes, whether it's work, family or friends.
At 80 points or so, my diamond will be way bigger than some people and way smaller than others.
So, I'm just gonna go for something that looks good on me and is comfortable to wear.
CAn you tell I am 46 and not 26?
yep.