shape
carat
color
clarity

small hands, small diamond, need setting advice

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Tadeo

Rough_Rock
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
7
Hello
First post here (a long one, I try to give as much information as possible). I’m facing indecision with my upcoming engagement ring purchase. Here’s the girl. She doesn’t wear much jewelry at all, just a few simple earrings, and is fairly active.
While this engagement won’t be a surprise, the timing and ring will be. I want to get a ring that she’ll truly love, so I did talk with her a little bit. She’s fairly traditional so she specifically told me that she doesn’t want to pick out her own ring, and when I suggested that we could always upgrade in the future, well, she didn’t like that idea at all, (she tends to be very sentimental about such things), so getting a cheap temp setting is out. She did tell me two things. She wants a low set ring, and then told me to trust my instincts (apparently I have good taste). I did convince her to find out her ring size, which is a 4.

The round diamonds I’m looking at are around .60-.65 ct, which is a size that I can afford with my budget of around $2,500 for the diamond. The diamond is the easy part, I’ve found some nice ideal cut ones in this price range at whiteflash and goodoldgold, but the setting is the challenge. My biggest concern is ring width. The low set rings that I have seen seem wide, around 3.0-3.5mm. I’m worried that this will be too much for size 4 fingers that are about 3 inches long. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

My other concern has to do with the small diamond. I like settings such as the Vatche royal X-prong and the W-prong from WF which tend to have a width of about 3mm, but the pictures I have found of these settings tend to be larger stones than I am planning on buying, I’m worried about the amount of metal. Does anyone think that they will cover up too much of the diamond?

If I “trust my instincts”, I don’t think she would like settings such as halos or tension. I think she would like something simple, but at the same time something that is a little unique, which is why I was looking at settings such as the ones mentioned above instead of the standard 4 or 6 prong style. But with a diamond of this size would a plain style be the best bet? I live in the middle of nowhere, so the only jewelry stores within a few hours drive are small, mainly mall stores that don’t have many options for me to look at in person, and I’m still digging through old and recent threads on small diamonds but for some reason my computer doesn’t like this site and it loads the pictures extremely slowly.

So here is the breakdown of the above ramblings.
1)Ring for a girl who wants a low set, but doesn’t want to pick out her own and is against upgrading (at least for now).
2)Will a ring width of 3-3.5mm be too much for size 4, 3 inch fingers?
3)Will settings such as the X-prong or W-prong have too much metal for a .60 -.65 ct diamond?
4)For this size diamond would a plain 4 to 6 prong be the best bet?

Thank you for any comments, this site has already taught me so much ever since I discovered it.
1.gif
 
Date: 11/2/2006 10:19:00 AM
Author:Tadeo
Hello
So here is the breakdown of the above ramblings.
1)Ring for a girl who wants a low set, but doesn’t want to pick out her own and is against upgrading (at least for now).
2)Will a ring width of 3-3.5mm be too much for size 4, 3 inch fingers?
3)Will settings such as the X-prong or W-prong have too much metal for a .60 -.65 ct diamond?
4)For this size diamond would a plain 4 to 6 prong be the best bet?

Thank you for any comments, this site has already taught me so much ever since I discovered it.
1.gif
get her a low set and a stone from somewher eyou CAN upgrade with *someday* like in 10 years or whatever LOL

3.5 is not too wide if she likes that - some women have rings that re very wide on purpose, they feel more solid and sturdy and that is comorting. Dainty certianly is anoter look and it can be flattering on small hands but not the only look that looks good.

I don''t know the answer to this...

Plain? nah.... LOL
 
What about a bezel setting? It is sturdy, looks nice and modern, won''t catch on anything- if she''s sporty and active she might prefer this setting, and you can still get an interesting design. I have a 3mm band and my fingers are small and short-ish- It is definititely not too big- my diamond is .7 so around the same size as yours.
 
For a first post you sure are ahead of the game! You are very well-informed with a great attitude (not enough men come here with the intent of allowing a future upgrade, hehe!).

A 3 to 3.5mm wide band is not exactly dainty, but it''s not wide and clunky either. Somewhere in between. It''s such a personal pref, so I''d suggest asking your GF if she''d rather go thin or slightly thicker for the band and take some of the guesswork out of it. Since you''ve already chatted a little about this, one more question won''t hurt.
2.gif


The Vatche or the W-prong are both extremely beautiful. You can''''t go wrong with either and no there isn''t too much metal for a .6 stone, but here are some more options for your consideration. All look like they could be set low:

I love the tulip head on this DimendScaasi setting, and the shank appears fairly narrow:
1A3A.jpg


Dimend Scaasi''s take on the classic Tiffany setting: LOVE the curvy prongs:
1AA3.jpg


The very popular Vatche Royal Crown:
921-b.gif


Vatche Royal Empress. Very unique and looks low-set:
526-a.jpg


CareBear''s drop-dead gorgeous Tiffany replica by Excel. I bet they could set diamond as high or low as you want:
cbering3.jpg
CIMG2829-2.JPG
 
Date: 11/2/2006 10:19:00 AM
Author:Tadeo
Hello
First post here (a long one, I try to give as much information as possible). I’m facing indecision with my upcoming engagement ring purchase. Here’s the girl. She doesn’t wear much jewelry at all, just a few simple earrings, and is fairly active.
While this engagement won’t be a surprise, the timing and ring will be. I want to get a ring that she’ll truly love, so I did talk with her a little bit. She’s fairly traditional so she specifically told me that she doesn’t want to pick out her own ring, and when I suggested that we could always upgrade in the future, well, she didn’t like that idea at all, (she tends to be very sentimental about such things), so getting a cheap temp setting is out. She did tell me two things. She wants a low set ring, and then told me to trust my instincts (apparently I have good taste). I did convince her to find out her ring size, which is a 4.

The round diamonds I’m looking at are around .60-.65 ct, which is a size that I can afford with my budget of around $2,500 for the diamond. The diamond is the easy part, I’ve found some nice ideal cut ones in this price range at whiteflash and goodoldgold, but the setting is the challenge. My biggest concern is ring width. The low set rings that I have seen seem wide, around 3.0-3.5mm. I’m worried that this will be too much for size 4 fingers that are about 3 inches long. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

My other concern has to do with the small diamond. I like settings such as the Vatche royal X-prong and the W-prong from WF which tend to have a width of about 3mm, but the pictures I have found of these settings tend to be larger stones than I am planning on buying, I’m worried about the amount of metal. Does anyone think that they will cover up too much of the diamond?

If I “trust my instincts”, I don’t think she would like settings such as halos or tension. I think she would like something simple, but at the same time something that is a little unique, which is why I was looking at settings such as the ones mentioned above instead of the standard 4 or 6 prong style. But with a diamond of this size would a plain style be the best bet? I live in the middle of nowhere, so the only jewelry stores within a few hours drive are small, mainly mall stores that don’t have many options for me to look at in person, and I’m still digging through old and recent threads on small diamonds but for some reason my computer doesn’t like this site and it loads the pictures extremely slowly.

So here is the breakdown of the above ramblings.
1)Ring for a girl who wants a low set, but doesn’t want to pick out her own and is against upgrading (at least for now).
2)Will a ring width of 3-3.5mm be too much for size 4, 3 inch fingers?
3)Will settings such as the X-prong or W-prong have too much metal for a .60 -.65 ct diamond?
4)For this size diamond would a plain 4 to 6 prong be the best bet?

Thank you for any comments, this site has already taught me so much ever since I discovered it.
1.gif
First I think she''s asking alot of you! Maybe she''s really flexible about the setting and the stone size? You''re being great tho going along with what SHE wants.
21.gif


Second I would worry about the width of settings. My finger is a 5 but I have very little space between my knuckle and the first joint. Much less than some people on PS. Remember you have to fit an ering and a w-ring in there! I would have her close her eyes put a simple band on her left ring finger and then measure the room you have left. She may not go for that tho.

A narrow band esp one that narrows toward the diamond will make the dimond pop! And it won''t crowd her hand.

Vendors post settings with larger diamonds in them but you can compare their photos to other photos of settings. Eventually if you look long enough you''ll see which ones look narrow and make the diamond pop.

www.pearlmansjewelers.com has alot of settings. You can spend hours looking thru there.

I also like Wink jones www.winkjones.com for looking at settings.

These two sites should give you some ideas. If she really never wants to change her stone or setting I''d spend hours and hours online looking at settings. That''s not bad, it could be fun!
21.gif


HTH
 
i think the vatche royal crown is a beauty.
3.gif

here''s my 3stone w-prong from wf (ring size 4.5)
it''s very low set and the prongs are so delicate, even on the sidestones.

wfwprong4.5.JPG
 
Date: 11/2/2006 10:52:47 AM
Author: KristyDarling
For a first post you sure are ahead of the game! You are very well-informed with a great attitude (not enough men come here with the intent of allowing a future upgrade, hehe!).

A 3 to 3.5mm wide band is not exactly dainty, but it''s not wide and clunky either. Somewhere in between. It''s such a personal pref, so I''d suggest asking your GF if she''d rather go thin or slightly thicker for the band and take some of the guesswork out of it. Since you''ve already chatted a little about this, one more question won''t hurt.
2.gif


The Vatche or the W-prong are both extremely beautiful. You can''t go wrong with either and no there isn''t too much metal for a .6 stone, but here are some more options for your consideration. All look like they could be set low:

I love the tulip head on this DimendScaasi setting, and the shank appears fairly narrow:
1A3A.jpg


Dimend Scaasi''s take on the classic Tiffany setting: LOVE the curvy prongs:
1AA3.jpg


The very popular Vatche Royal Crown:
921-b.gif


Vatche Royal Empress. Very unique and looks low-set:
526-a.jpg


CareBear''s drop-dead gorgeous Tiffany replica by Excel. I bet they could set diamond as high or low as you want:
cbering3.jpg
CIMG2829-2.JPG
these are all great IMO except the royal crown - lovely but too high.. my favorite solitaire setting though is yours kristy... your 4 prong locke looker... did you have probs with that? I see it''s still your avatar even tough you swapped it for a 3 stone...
 
I like the idea of a thinner band on the e-ring if she has smaller hands. You also have to think about how wide the whole thing will be once you add a wedding band, so if you had a 3 mm e-ring and a 3 mm wedding band (not that they have to match, but if they did) then all the sudden you''ve got 6 mm work of metal there, and that might be too much.


(Slight thread-jack: Belle - where are you gonna have a thread on this fabulous ring that you keep sneaking posts of?!?)
 
Date: 11/2/2006 10:54:19 AM
Author: Stone Hunter

First I think she''s asking alot of you! Maybe she''s really flexible about the setting and the stone size? You''re being great tho going along with what SHE wants.
21.gif


Second I would worry about the width of settings. My finger is a 5 but I have very little space between my knuckle and the first joint. Much less than some people on PS. Remember you have to fit an ering and a w-ring in there! I would have her close her eyes put a simple band on her left ring finger and then measure the room you have left. She may not go for that tho.

A narrow band esp one that narrows toward the diamond will make the dimond pop! And it won''t crowd her hand.

Vendors post settings with larger diamonds in them but you can compare their photos to other photos of settings. Eventually if you look long enough you''ll see which ones look narrow and make the diamond pop.

www.pearlmansjewelers.com has alot of settings. You can spend hours looking thru there.

I also like Wink jones www.winkjones.com for looking at settings.

These two sites should give you some ideas. If she really never wants to change her stone or setting I''d spend hours and hours online looking at settings. That''s not bad, it could be fun!
21.gif


HTH
in my experience if it''s wide on top it crowds it visually - but underneath is where the comfort zone is. a tiny finger can have a 16x16 piece across the top so long as it is smaller in the back where she bends her fingers, makes a fist.

That said, 6mm total between two bands isn''t uncommon at all and most women can handle that as long as the ringis the correct size.
 
Thanks everybody. I was thinking about a semi-bezel early on in my search, but I was told by a few local jewelers that a with such a small ring size bezel settings don''t work very well due to the curvature of the band. And this was at a store that had them in stock and were more expensive than the other ones I was looking at. Of course, this is the same store that showed me a "certified colorless diamond", so I took out a white notecard and the saleslady immediatly said, "Gee, I didn''t know they made tinted notecards" even before I had a chance to put the diamond next to it. (needless to say I walked out, laughing)

As for getting her opinion on ring width, well, I''ve tried that already and she said just as long as she can bend her fingers she''d be happy. I love the girl but sometimes it''s like pulling teeth, even getting her to tell me her ring size was hard enough. Further complicating matters is that she started grad school this year several states away, so it''s been an interesting experiance to say the least
1.gif
 
I have been taking the wedding band in consideration too. She wants to do that part together, probally would be a thin simple one. We are both studying archaeology, although she would never wear her e-ring in the field for the obvious reasons (we got really excited one year when we found a diamond in the dirt we were screening, only to find out it fell out of another student''s ring, a lesson we both remember well). But the rings still will face abuse if she wears them while doing lab work.
 
I agree with Cehra who said to make sure you buy from someone with and upgrade policy. She may not think she wants to now but I didn''t think I ever wanted to upgrade 6 years ago when I got married either. So it''s a nice perk to have just in case. I''ll admit I''m one of those gals who like to know all the details and wouldn''t like to be surprised on my e-ring design. I do understand that there are a lot of tradional women out there who want their man to surprise them and they will be happy. That said, I think you are safer going with a more tradional solitaire type ring. I like bezels on some settings but I personally wouldn''t want one for and e-ring unless in had a halo. Too much of the stone is hidden for my liking. I think if you chose a pretty 4 or 6 prong solitaire, have the diamond set lower, and pair it with a plain wedding band it would be a wonderful set.
 
Date: 11/2/2006 11:28:04 AM
Author: Tadeo
I have been taking the wedding band in consideration too. She wants to do that part together, probally would be a thin simple one. We are both studying archaeology, although she would never wear her e-ring in the field for the obvious reasons (we got really excited one year when we found a diamond in the dirt we were screening, only to find out it fell out of another student's ring, a lesson we both remember well). But the rings still will face abuse if she wears them while doing lab work.
oh how priceless!!! Look honey, I found a diamond! A cut and faceted diamond! It must be really special!! lol hehehehe :D

seriously - how lucky for the other woman you found it!!!!!
 
Oh I have smaller fingers length wise than Turtledazzle! That''s why I''m obsessed with you getting a thin band for your ering. You better go by your gf''s hands. But if they are like mine or Turtledazzle then thick bands wouldn''t work.

Kristy and Mrssalvo posted some really lovely settings. You could easily pick one of these. They are all very classic.
 
I have to concur with those that suggested a thin band. Though my finger size is a 5, I have small hands, and thicker bands just don't look right on my fingers. My ring has a band that is about 2.3mm and it's perfect.
 
Thanks everyone, I definitly will go for a thin band. By the way, this forum has some of the nicest folks I''ve met on the internet, really appriciate it
1.gif
 
What do you think of this ring?
http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Solitaire/-Flush-Fit--Cathedral-Style-Ring_1065.htm#
2.6mm tapering to 2mm.
I haven''t seen this before, it must be new. I think it looks good, I like it alot more than the other cathedral style rings I''ve seen before. At this price I could probally go up a little in diamond size.
 
I''m somewhat in the same boat looking for a ring except I have lots of help from my girl.


She is a size 4 with longer fingers. She works with kids doing physical therapy so she is very active and needs a low setting ring.

We have been looking at x-prong rings very closely because the design is pleasing to us both, allows for light to come in, and also the ring builds up to setting.


Same as yourself I am looking at a smaller stone, more along the lines of .5ct or there abouts.
 
I think that ring from WF is very lovely.
 
Mrssalvo beat me to the punch, but I like that one from WF too. Looks like the head sits fairly low, which if memory serves, is the look that you wanted.
 
Hi Tadeo -- WF does beautiful work and that''s a nice ring, but it may not offer the "unique" part that you had mentioned wanting. It''s a very classic, basic style. To be honest, it''s not the most graceful setting I''ve seen. It''s somewhat clunky, to my eye. And when I clicked for the enlarged view, I saw that the diamond will inherently sit somewhat high (I think to allow clearance for the surprise diamond). If you want a low-profile, this may not be the right setting for you.

The upside is that it will allow any band to sit flush with it, and you can put more money towards the stone (always a good thing!!!). Why don''t you ask your GF if having a flush wedding band is important to her? Because if she wants a low-set stone, she probably won''t have a flush wedding band....may want to remind her about that.

I think it''s great you''re focusing on WF. Like the others have said, she may not THINK she''ll ever want an upgrade, but at least this way you''ll have the option, just in case! And I also agree that for a small-handed girl, thin shanks are often best (and most comfortable)!
 
WF also has a Fine Line and Sleek Line solitaire that are a little more graceful than the one above. And they both have a thin shank and I am sure you can specify that you want the stone set as low as possible.
 
My fiance is an archaeologist too, and also spends most of the week five hours from here. I asked him to draw my original e-ring and it sits very very flat. (When I stretch my hand out, it sits lower than my knuckles ) I work as a mail carrier, and I am the only girl at my office who can wear her ring to work. (its in the colored gemstone main thread, since the center is a ruby)

We had a local jeweler do it, but, if you asked a jeweler here to make a ring with a very flat semi-bezel, I bet they could do it reasonably. My band is also either 3.0 or 3.4 mm wide not including the stone area, and is way more comfy than my jeans.
 
I really don''t think 3mm band is too wide for her finger. My finger size is 4.25 and is ~2.75" long. Even though I don''t have a solitaire or a plain wedding band, my setting and band are about 3mm wide and they are comfortable and don''t look too overwhelming on my short finger.

kikiring.jpg
 
Hi Tadeo and welcome! For smaller stones (not that .6 is that small, my e-ring 10 years ago was .3) I LOVE the settings at Niwaka, www.niwaka.com.

Here''s some examples. I know WF has made a custom version of the first one. Niwaka is very expensive but WF or Quest or someone could always make something similar.

Picture 2.png
 
Okay can''t attach more than one at once...

Picture 1.png
 
...

Picture 3.png
 
last one which I looooovvvee...

half_bezel.png
 
hi there!
hope this helps...
i have a smaller size finger of 3.5 and whiteflash made my ring. they did a wonderful job.
make sure that her knuckles are not that big for her ring size otherwise she will have a problem everytime she wears and takes it out during lab work(it is always a struggle for me because i have such big knuckles).Secondly, if her fingers are long , i dont'' think that having a wider band will be a problem.. but then that is a personal preference.anyways, good luck!
 
Dear Tadeo! I love how well you know your girl, and it's just lovely that she trusts your taste!! Ok, I think 3-3.5mm won't overwhelm her hands at all. For the type of work that she does, a plain (no pave!) band will be ideal. I love the idea of the bezel set. They're so beautiful. I don't know much about ideal size stones to go in them, but I can just picture her out in the field or in the lab with a bezel set ring. I don't think it would catch on anything, and it has a very sleek, streamlined look.

I love the rings that angeline posted, and I think they are both practical and unique. They're beautiful. Probably low profile too. What do you think of those?

Just so you have some visual references, I attached a photo of my ring on my hand. My ring finger is size 4.5. The length of that finger is 2.5 inches. The stone dimensions are about 6.3mm x 6.2mm and the width of the band is 3mm. Obviously my ring would not work at all for your girl, but it's just to give you an idea of a 3mm wide band on a very short finger. I don't like my hands, but I also don't think the ring overwhelms my finger. Your girlfriend's hand will look very nice with any ring, because they're long and slender. Lucky girl!

Good luck! I'm excited to see what you finally pick. Please keep us updated!

CJring158.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top