Solitaire Thoughts...

[omieluv]

While I will be the one wearing my eventual e-ring on a daily basis, I would still like to have my BF have some say in the final choice. So, what I am going to do is give him a few options of settings I like that he can pick from. Since I do not know what his budget will be, I want to give him a few solitars and a few more intricate settings to pick from. Since there are so many options, I would like to focus on solitairs for this thread.

I suppose I am drawn to simple styles, but I really do enjoy a vintage look. Not sure if that is possible for a solitaire without quite a bit of hunting ( I also want to keep this process easy and painless for my BF). I also like settings that are lower as well. As for metal, I am open to white gold or plat, but would prefer plat. The stone size is probably going to be in the 1.20-1.30 range, so not a whopper of a diamond, which is more than likely to come from WF or possibly GOG.

So far, I really do like WF''s Sleek Line Legatto, it seems to speak to me. Also, I would be interested in Leon''s solitairs, but there are so many and I am not sure which would enhance a stone in the size range I specified. Most on his site are quite a bit larger and I am not sure if his settings will look right with a smaller stone. Can anyone suggest a solitair from Leon that might work with what I am looking for (low profile, not too thick shank, and appropriate for a 1.2-1.3 size diamond)? I also would want to wear my wedding band with it. I did see on Leon''s site that R1005 is pictured with a 1.31, which looks beautiful, so I am wondering if the others would look just as nice with a smaller stone (r909, r986, r785, r572). Any thoughts? Thanks so much!!

This was accidently posted in Show me the Ring...I hope the mod''s delete it from there.

 

[Rhea]

Could you link the leon ring so we know what you''re aiming toward?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I love the sleek line solitaire, I have it myself, but with your size stone I would totall suggest the WF W-prong. Recently, Isabelle posted her new W-prong solitaire that is a similar size to the stone you are anticipating, and it looks *STUNNING*. The legato is very very very delicate, and I wonder if it is more suited to a smaller stone?? But if delicate is what you want, then the legato sleek line is killer.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

I have to agree with dreamer - the sleek lines legato is really nice, andseems to have many fans here on the forum..


.......actually, truth be known, it was dreamer''s post about her sleek lines legato that made up my mind about what setting I wanted to get....

I think the post was called dreamers little beauty

I had narrowed it down to TWO - and dreamer''s post sealed the deal for the sleek lines.....

Hang on.........................






ah, here it is, this is dreamers post:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/dreamers-little-beauty.82376/

and here is the ring that I eventaully ordered (due for delivery today):

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/images-from-wf-waiting-for-delivery.88399/

 

[omieluv]

Addy - r1005 (classic solitaire) is pictured with a 1.31, which does look nice. I like that it seems to sit low. The rest are pictured with larger stones, so it is difficult for me to picture. Would love to have split prongs, but I do not think that is a good idea given it's small size, but I do like the prongs in this one. I just wonder how it will look with a wedding band, though I am not all that concerned with them sitting flush.

Side view: http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=432
Front: http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=431

dreamer_dachsie - For some reason, I missed Isabelle's thread, shame on me! Her ring is stunning, I see what you mean. I think the 3.5 shank is a bit wide for me, but the setting really does make her 1.06 pop (I am sure the quality of the stone helps). I will have to think on that one. Regarding the Legatto, I have seen some larger stones in that setting, but you are right, it is delicate and I do not want to kill it. The W-prong seems very sturdy and yet elegant.

Diamond Joe Quimby - Thank you for providing those links! Your ring is beautiful and I cannot wait to see handshots. Dreamer's ring looks great on her hand as well. Now I am starting to wonder whether a 1.2-1.3 stone would look in the Legatto, since it seems to favor stones under 1ct.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

If you have a look for rings by user called KATIEDID, she had a legato sleek lines with a 3/4 carat stone, then upgraded to around a 1.1 carat stone - so you can see what the difference would look like!!

I have also seen somewhere on this forum a thread with a stone in hte 1.3-1.4 carat range in a sleek lines legato setting and it looked really really nice! Although I htink that person had quite large fingers/hands!

Part of hte reason I went with the sleek lines and a 0.82 carat diamond was that a) my girlfriend has very small ands (size 4 childrens size hands) and this size would suit her; b) she is not very flashy and is a primary school teacher - so needs something nice, yet not too overbearing c) she likes simple style rings d) the plain band gives us more options with wedding bands.

We are going to desing the wedding bands ourselves and I will also flag to her options of having hte stone re-set for wedding set !

Diamond Joe

 

[omieluv]

Diamond Joe - I do recall Katedid''s ring, it is so beautiful. You are probably right, the Legatto looks great at several ct sizes. My hands are size 6, so yes a bit larger for PS standards. I do not want something super thin, but want to stay in the 2.5 - 3 range for the shank. The w-prong is interesting though. I am not super flashy either, which is why solitairs appeal to me, love the simplicity of them. Additionally, I love the idea that I would have more flexibility with the wedding band too.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 6/25/2008 7:45:34 PM
Author: omieluv
Diamond Joe - I do recall Katedid''s ring, it is so beautiful. You are probably right, the Legatto looks great at several ct sizes. My hands are size 6, so yes a bit larger for PS standards. I do not want something super thin, but want to stay in the 2.5 - 3 range for the shank. The w-prong is interesting though. I am not super flashy either, which is why solitairs appeal to me, love the simplicity of them. Additionally, I love the idea that I would have more flexibility with the wedding band too.

I alos have size 6 hands, and to tell the truth, I think I would prefer a slightly thicker band... I really love the W-prong for that reason, the extra 1mm isn''t much, but I feel that the extra thickness in the band kind of balances the slightly thicker finger size

But that''s just me, if you like a 2.5mm band then the legato is gorgeous.

PS: Diamond Joe your ring looks awesome!!

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Date: 6/25/2008 8:03:40 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 6/25/2008 7:45:34 PM
Author: omieluv
Diamond Joe - I do recall Katedid''s ring, it is so beautiful. You are probably right, the Legatto looks great at several ct sizes. My hands are size 6, so yes a bit larger for PS standards. I do not want something super thin, but want to stay in the 2.5 - 3 range for the shank. The w-prong is interesting though. I am not super flashy either, which is why solitairs appeal to me, love the simplicity of them. Additionally, I love the idea that I would have more flexibility with the wedding band too.

I alos have size 6 hands, and to tell the truth, I think I would prefer a slightly thicker band... I really love the W-prong for that reason, the extra 1mm isn''t much, but I feel that the extra thickness in the band kind of balances the slightly thicker finger size

But that''s just me, if you like a 2.5mm band then the legato is gorgeous.

PS: Diamond Joe your ring looks awesome!!

I knew you would like it - its almost identifacal to yours......................yours is where I got the inspiration for and its what helped me decide on the legato sleek lines.........

I also love the W-Prong - but I felt that the sleek lines would emphasise the diamond more and was slightly simpler - and hte thinner shank was important because my girlfiend (having small hands) does not have a great deal of room between her knuckles - so the thinner band will allow her to wear a wedding ring with the band....... see a 3 mm engagment ring, plus a 3mm wedding band means a total ring width of 6mm which may overpower a small hand......

I also really liked a ''semi-custom'' which was the band of the sleek lines with a six prong head of the tiffany setting - look through my other posts for wonderings about this setting and photos!

A