Thanks to PS members & WF! Now need some advice on LM setting

[Palmxp3]

Hi all,

So with the help of PS members and WF, I finally received my diamond in and had it appraised for MUCH more than I had purchased it for. The appraiser was in awe of the diamond and told me it scored excellent on all cut aspects. AGS also graded it an SI1 and he thought it was graded too "tough" (he said it was a VS2), but that it benefited me since as long as I was ok with that label. My WF rep confirmed it was definitely eye-clean and he was absolutely right. I have a hard enough time finding the inclusions with a 10x loupe.

Here are the diamond specs:
- WF ACA AGS000
- Carat: 1.550
- Color: G
- Clarity: SI1
- Total Depth: 60.9%
- Table: 55.7%
- Crown Angle: 34.6 degrees
- Pavillion Angle: 40.7 degrees

Now I am in the process of picking out a setting and wanted to get some thoughts on this setting. Is the section (head?) that holds the diamond in going to affect the overall brilliance of the stone since it covers up a good portion of it? Are there any other forum members who have this style? I love everything about this setting except of the dainty look of the shank. Would getting a larger (2.50-3.0mm) band make it look more substantial? Or perhaps have it widen towards the diamond?

Sorry for all the questions, I hope everyone can chime in with some opinions. Thanks!!!

 

[Palmxp3]

Side view:

 

[mrssalvo]

that is a gorgeous setting. Just wanted to note that a wedding band is not going to sit anywhere near flush if that is something that is important to you. You can discuss with Leon options about a wider shank. you might also look at Mark Morrell designs. His rings don''t have the same dainty quality that most of Leon''s seem to have and might be a good match for you if you are looking for something a little more substantial.

 

[Palmxp3]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will look into his work. The thing is, my GF loves hand crafted unique items with LOTS of detail and this ring definitely fits the bill, I love the milligraine work on it.

 

[MMT]

I love this setting, especially the dainty band. I think the smaller bands make the diamond look larger. The basket is gorgeous!!!

 

[32degrees]

I also believe that a smaller band will make the diamond appear larger. THat is a very nice setting. Simple from up top, but complex from the side. I too am seeking a band with a bit of filigree, and maybe a melee. Good choice!

 

[Gypsy]

It''s a beautiful setting. But um... if I may suggest a few of my favorite of my favorite Leon''s? I wouldn''t go three sided on the pave on the shank and would only to 3/4 on it instead of eternity. But I love and adore this setting.

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=51

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=475 Absolute favorite, though I would ask that the shank be thinner in proportion to the center stone and tab prongs instead of claws for this ONE setting.

But if she really loves details this one is the absolute winner for me: http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=372 Just the way it is.

And if you want something simplier with detail and very lovely: http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=436

 

[Gypsy]

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/FancyTorchiere_2ct_sz5.5_/index.html Alternately you can ask Mark to add milgrain to the edges of the pave on this shank.

 

[purrfectpear]

Are you the one who thinks it should be more "substantial" aka wider, or the future FI?

I ask because the majority of women want the shank as dainty as possible lately.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

oooh, that ring is super yummy! I need to win the lotto!

 

[Palmxp3]

Date: 5/28/2009 4:04:22 PM
Author: Gypsy
It''s a beautiful setting. But um... if I may suggest a few of my favorite of my favorite Leon''s? I wouldn''t go three sided on the pave on the shank and would only to 3/4 on it instead of eternity. But I love and adore this setting.

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=51

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=475 Absolute favorite, though I would ask that the shank be thinner in proportion to the center stone and tab prongs instead of claws for this ONE setting.

But if she really loves details this one is the absolute winner for me: http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=372 Just the way it is.

And if you want something simplier with detail and very lovely: http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=436

Hey Gypsy,

I absolutely agree 100% on your opinions for number 1, 2, and 3. I love both #1 and 2 as well, but I''m afraid they are out of my budget after already spending more on the center stone than originally expected. I have been looking at #2 for the band as I like how it transitions to wider towards the top (but I agree that it should be slightly thinner so it doens''t look too heavy as well).

 

[Palmxp3]

Date: 5/28/2009 4:12:34 PM
Author: purrfectpear
Are you the one who thinks it should be more ''substantial'' aka wider, or the future FI?

I ask because the majority of women want the shank as dainty as possible lately.

I personally would prefer a more classic setting such as the Mark Morrell solitaires and don''t mind the thinner bands. But I''m fairly confident that she''d want one that''s a little more substantial.

Also, any opinions on whether this basket would hinder some of the light return? I thought all that mattered was the light coming in through the crown, but I spoke to a friend that said different. She said her original setting covered the whole bottom section of the diamond and she eventually upgraded to another one that had mose of the sides exposed and she was surprised at how much it improved the look of the diamond.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 5/28/2009 5:22:47 PM
Author: Palmxp3
Also, any opinions on whether this basket would hinder some of the light return? I thought all that mattered was the light coming in through the crown, but I spoke to a friend that said different. She said her original setting covered the whole bottom section of the diamond and she eventually upgraded to another one that had mose of the sides exposed and she was surprised at how much it improved the look of the diamond.

That's because she didn't have a good diamond. A well cut stone will reflect the light coming through the crown, as you thought. Her diamond probably leaked a lot of light because of poor cut, and became a window in spots instead of a reflector, so what "improved" was that instead of seeing the dark area of the setting, she was now looking through the diamond and seeing lighter flesh color. The basket will not affect light return on a beautiful stone like yours.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You are correct and the friend is wrong, unless she had a really poorly cut stone in the first place! You can cover the entire pavilion of an ideal cut stone and it won''t have any effect on the light return. As you mentioned, the light comes in from the top of the stone and reflects it.

I love Leon Mege settings and would not recommend wider than 2.5mm. That would be a little more substantial but still thin. Be sure you tell him to make the head so a wedding band can sit fairly close to it. And I would not put diamonds on the side of the shank, just the top. The bands with 3-sided pave are not supposed to be worn with a wedding band.

 

[Palmxp3]

Thanks for the reassurance Jet and DS2006, I thought that was the case but just wanted to make sure. I was afraid that this setting might not work out afterall but am so glad it will since I''ve looked around like what seems forever. I too was thinking about 2.5mm, which would put it right in between and would be a good compromise.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/28/2009 5:49:01 PM
Author: Palmxp3
Thanks for the reassurance Jet and DS2006, I thought that was the case but just wanted to make sure. I was afraid that this setting might not work out afterall but am so glad it will since I''ve looked around like what seems forever. I too was thinking about 2.5mm, which would put it right in between and would be a good compromise.

I think that size shank is nice...it will still make the stone look large but will definitely have a presence with the diamonds on the shank. Please come back and post pictures for us!!!

(Oh, and when I said tell him to make it so that a wedding band can sit close...I mean tell him that you want the little doughnut under the stone to be very small like he makes it on his classic solitaire so that a wedding band can sit close. Mine don''t sit flush, but they are close enough and don''t look like one big ring. I''d honestly consider having him make a matching wedding band either now or later, so tell him if that is your intent. Oh, and like Gypsy, I''d only have the diamonds 3/4 of the way around the shank in case it ever has to be sized. You are certain of her ring size now, right?)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just realized that if you look at my avatar picture, my diamond (1.63 cts., 7.6mm) is close to the size of yours, and my wedding band is 2mm with the milgrain edge. So you can get an idea that a 2.5mm will be a bit wider than that.

 

[Palmxp3]

Date: 5/28/2009 5:55:32 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 5/28/2009 5:49:01 PM
Author: Palmxp3
Thanks for the reassurance Jet and DS2006, I thought that was the case but just wanted to make sure. I was afraid that this setting might not work out afterall but am so glad it will since I''ve looked around like what seems forever. I too was thinking about 2.5mm, which would put it right in between and would be a good compromise.

I think that size shank is nice...it will still make the stone look large but will definitely have a presence with the diamonds on the shank. Please come back and post pictures for us!!!

(Oh, and when I said tell him to make it so that a wedding band can sit close...I mean tell him that you want the little doughnut under the stone to be very small like he makes it on his classic solitaire so that a wedding band can sit close. Mine don''t sit flush, but they are close enough and don''t look like one big ring. I''d honestly consider having him make a matching wedding band either now or later, so tell him if that is your intent. Oh, and like Gypsy, I''d only have the diamonds 3/4 of the way around the shank in case it ever has to be sized. You are certain of her ring size now, right?)

Yes, I most certainly will, if she accepts that is (crosses fingers). I have an appointment with Leon next week, so we''ll see how things go.I was planning to have the pave exactly as it is in the 2nd pic, which would be considered 1/2 to 2/3rd way down correct?