The Most indecisive person ever - PS, please don''t hate me...

[lingpanda01]

Here it goes again. I hope people aren''t too sick and tired of seeing all my similar threads.

Which one do you think is the safest bet for something very classical, but with a little bit of pizazz?

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/ring/item_412-3964.asp
or
http://www.since1910.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/round-and-baguette-diamond-setting-26ct-tw-dm2051-set-53.aspx
or
http://www.questjewelers.com/?page=designers&action=details&pID=330&category=20

Although that last one might be way above my budget...

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 10/19/2009 10:33:55 PM
Author:lingpanda01
Here it goes again. I hope people aren't too sick and tired of seeing all my similar threads.

Which one do you think is the safest bet for something very classical, but with a little bit of pizazz?

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/ring/item_412-3964.asp
or
http://www.since1910.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/round-and-baguette-diamond-setting-26ct-tw-dm2051-set-53.aspx
or
http://www.questjewelers.com/?page=designers&action=details&pID=330&category=20

Although that last one might be way above my budget...

Just making them clickable and then will look.

They are all three beautiful, but have very different personalities. To me, #2 is the most "classic" amoung those, but none of them will ever really go out of style. Have you had a chance to go try on similar settings in person? I'd be very surprised if one style doesn't speak to you more than the others. (All that said, I like the third one, but that is strictly a personal preference, they are all great.)

 

[swingirl]

What size and shape is your stone?

 

[lingpanda01]

Thanks for turning them into links for me Jet! I've only really taken a close look at the second one, which I almost pulled the trigger on. I really loved it. It looks A LOT more delicate in person than in a giant picture on your monitor. Also, with the two rounds on the ends, I thought it might match really well with a pave eternity wedding band. But I haven't seen the other two in person. So I am starting to get a little more hesitant.

My stone will most likely be around a .80~.90ct round. I *was* toying with the idea of getting an Emerald cut for the second setting I posted. But decided to play it safe and go with a sparkly round. Especially after hearing that inclusions show up more easily on Emerald cuts and that they don't sparkle much unless you buy an almost flawless, expensive one.

 

[E B]

Date: 10/19/2009 10:33:55 PM
Author:lingpanda01

Which one do you think is the safest bet for something very classical, but with a little bit of pizazz?

I like the first, from James Allen. I think it''s great if you''re looking for ''classic with a bit of pizazz.''

 

[Collee]

All are pretty but my votes goes to #2. I wouldn''t focus so much on which is a "safe" classic style. Select the setting that you LOVE.

I am also VERY indecisive as well and would have a very difficult time selecting a setting sight unseen. I want to feel, see, study and scrutinize (yes, i am very picky) a setting before purchasing. KUDOS to those (and there are many) that buy a setting online (just based on pics and measurements) but I am definitely not one of them.

 

[tyty333]

I think #2 would be the most classic but I also like #1. I dont think of split shank when I think classic (although it is
pretty too).

I would also look at shared prong wedding bands to go with #2. Nothing is going to sit flush with it though without
a curve in it which most people shy away from.

Something like this.

 

[Collee]

Date: 10/20/2009 8:28:27 AM
Author: tyty333
I think #2 would be the most classic but I also like #1. I dont think of split shank when I think classic (although it is
pretty too).

I would also look at shared prong wedding bands to go with #2. Nothing is going to sit flush with it though without
a curve in it which most people shy away from.

Something like this.

Interesting point. OT but how can you tell from looking at the pics that a WB would not sit flush? When viewing the profile it appears to me that it is pretty smooth.

 

[tyty333]

Date: 10/20/2009 8:41:15 AM
Author: Collee

Date: 10/20/2009 8:28:27 AM
Author: tyty333
I think #2 would be the most classic but I also like #1. I dont think of split shank when I think classic (although it is
pretty too).

I would also look at shared prong wedding bands to go with #2. Nothing is going to sit flush with it though without
a curve in it which most people shy away from.

Something like this.

Interesting point. OT but how can you tell from looking at the pics that a WB would not sit flush? When viewing the profile it appears to me that it is pretty smooth.

I guess there is a slight chance it could set flush but if you look at my avatar I have a ring very similar to it...most of
these rings with the baguettes on the sides are similar and a wedding band wont set flush with them. Mine is not
bad (well, lets say it doesnt bother me) but you can see a small gap between my wedding band and my e-ring. What
causes it is that the prongs have to curve outward from the bottom to accomodate the stone. Its very difficult to tell
from a picture on the screen but thats usually how these settings are. If the OP really wants a flush setting they would
probably have to find a ring that had a slight bend in it (of if there is a matching band to the setting that would work).

 

[Collee]

Thanks for the explanation!

 

[lingpanda01]

Date: 10/20/2009 8:28:27 AM
Author: tyty333
I think #2 would be the most classic but I also like #1. I dont think of split shank when I think classic (although it is
pretty too).

I would also look at shared prong wedding bands to go with #2. Nothing is going to sit flush with it though without
a curve in it which most people shy away from.

Something like this.

Thanks, tyty333. If you don''t mind, can you explain what exactly a "shared prong wedding band" is? Also, I don''t think she''d mind if it sits perfectly flush.

 

[clgwli]

Personally I think #1 is the most classic looking that has a bit of flash to it. I''ve seen styles similar to that in antique stores that I have almost bought myself. I know you were really looking at #2 though and I think that is a good option as well. #3 while pretty seems more modern and if it is like the split shanks I have tried on harder to work with a band. Some are fine and some are not. Harder to tell without trying on.

I think either #1 or #2 would work. Go with what your gut says though because each of us has our own personal tastes and you know what would be liked best

 

[tyty333]

Date: 10/20/2009 9:54:23 AM
Author: lingpanda01

Date: 10/20/2009 8:28:27 AM
Author: tyty333
I think #2 would be the most classic but I also like #1. I dont think of split shank when I think classic (although it is
pretty too).

I would also look at shared prong wedding bands to go with #2. Nothing is going to sit flush with it though without
a curve in it which most people shy away from.

Something like this.

Thanks, tyty333. If you don't mind, can you explain what exactly a 'shared prong wedding band' is? Also, I don't think she'd mind if it sits perfectly flush.

Sure, if you look at that ring I gave the link to you can see that each set of prongs holds in 2 stones. With non-shared
prong rings each stone has its own 4 prongs. With shared prong each stone shares a set of prongs with the stone next
to it.

I'll try to find a picture of a non-shared prong ring. They usually show more metal because you are seeing more prongs.

Edit - here are pictures of the same ring done in shared prong and in 4 prong.
Edit again - I can see the 4 prong didnt come up. Click on the second picture of the 3 and you will see the 4
prong.

 

[bongolover]

I personally like number one out of the three! It looks great! Just like how you described it...

 

[Laila619]

I like the James Allen one best.

 

[lingpanda01]

Thanks for the clarification on shared prong.

Looks like 5 votes for the james allen, 3 votes for the tapered baguettes, and 1 vote for the split shank.