SO MANY CHOICES!! Help me with my setting please!

[shoff]

Hello PSers!

Much has happened in the month since I joined up here. I learned more than I ever thought I would know about diamonds, I discovered the wonder that is WhiteFlash and now I''m onto picking my setting. This has been, by far, the hardest part! To fill you all in I''ll tell you that after much scouring and contemplation I finally settled on a Princess Cut, 2.41 carat, G, VS2, AGS000 from WhiteFlash (see pics for IdealScop, ASET and Sarin). It is 1.03 ratio at 7.62 x 7.41 and it looks amazing. I''m using it''s 40x for my avatar!

Now my big question is; to have cleaning holes or NOT to have cleaning holes drilled in the setting WhiteFlash is making for me. I''m going with a platinum setting, size 6.5 ring with pave diamonds around half at either .30 or .50 tcw. Therefoew the band will either be 2mm or 2.2mm...I''m still debating and I WELCOME opinions!

I found a GORGEOUS band and setting via Hearts on Fire, it''s called Enrichment and it''s exactly what I wanted. Thin but not micro pave so it has significant shine yet very dainty to make the rock look even bigger and I can''t feel the prongs! HOF offers two versions; one with 19 stones at .25tcw and just under 2mm and one with 22 stones at .55tcw and approx. 2.5mm. The .25tcw is thinner and sits a little lower to the finger so you barely notice it but the .55tcw is sparklier! I''m torn!!

It''s a great setting either way, I just need to decide on the width, tcw and cleaning holes!

I''m going to post pics of the two on my hand right now. Again, I welcome all opinions and any advice as to whether or not cleaning holes help or hurt with smaller stones. I''ve heard from one Pricescope forum that a dark area formed under one lady''s pave stone and was impossible to clear up because she had no cleaning hole AND I''ve heard that they draw more dirt than they repel and you can get the pave stones just as clean without them.

 

[JulieN]

I think I prefer cleaning holes and an ultrasonic cleaner.

 

[mrssalvo]

there''s been some threads re: the purpose of the holes etc. I emailed the nice folks at Michael B a while ago because their rings don''t have holes. I''ll copy the email that they sent me. I ended up going with a different designer for my ring but I don''t have the holes. I also don''t clean it in the ultrasonic often and probably wouldn''t put any pave ring in there a lot, holes or not. M


here''s the email from Matthew at Michael b:




Traditionally, yellow gold was in vogue and the yellow background made the
diamonds look yellow, so holes were used to avoid the yellowing effect of
yellow gold.

MB focused on platinum for bridal and the diamonds actually looked
whiter with the reflection of the pure white metal beneath the diamond.

Also, holes in the back often result in lotion and other residue coming up
into the hole and making the diamonds filthy, forcing you to constantly use
ultra sonic cleaners which in turn loosen the diamonds.

Finally, holes are most often seen in jewelry that is cast to save the
manufacturer money on the amount of metal being used, so that you end up
with a more flimsy and less structurally integrous ring.

We make everything by hand, so structurally the ring is more sound, more
pure, more solid and more beautiful.

A jeweler making a ring by hand won''t sit there and drill holes in the back
on purpose, that comes straight out of a wax/mold process which also results
in greater porosity than hand made jewelry.

 

[shoff]

Ok, here''s a good collage to show the difference in the bands. The .25tcw is also a half size too small for me so I think it looks even lower to the finger than it would be. Again, I''m trying to pick a band based on not drowning out the diamond and still having sparkle. I''ll be hunting around in "Show me the ring" while I wait for responses!

 

[mrssalvo]

I''d go with the 2.2 but I personally like a little more substance to a ring. 2.2 mm will still be super thin.

 

[shoff]

Thanks Julie and MrsSalvo! Yes, I''ve heard that ultrasonic is a bad idea for pave'', I''d be too afraid to ever do it! I do prefer the look of the slightly larger diamonds. The smaller band is just really comfy. I''ll probably do 2.2 half pave band but I''m still curious to hear as many opinions as possible on holes vs. no holes! I''m going to search a few threads.