Thinking about getting my setting changed.

[peonygirl]

I have a lovely 1.23 carat Whiteflash ACA, but unfortunately I'm not loving the setting anymore, especially how it looks with the matching wedding band. I just feel like it's not delicate enough, and the center stone gets lost in the thickness of the combined bands. I'm not getting married until next year, but I was wearing the two bands around the house today for fun when it really started to bother me. I've attached a picture of the ring set, which is a little blurry.

As some of you may remember, I originally wanted a 1.8-2.0 mm shared-prong band, but SP said that in order for the band to be stable enough, the thinnest they could make is 2.3 mm. At the beginning I liked the e-ring setting (even though the thickness always bothered me a tiny bit), but with the combination of the wedding band it's just too much. I really want to wear both on the same hand when I get married. I still like the shared prong look a lot, so I'm thinking that we should maybe just try to get a thinner but otherwise identical set? I guess the other thing I could do is get a bigger center stone so my ring's proportions would suit me better, but that's not really in the budget now. I've seen a bunch of people on PS with super thing bands (teagreen and others), and I wonder how they've been holding up.

I'd love some feedback! I feel a little guilty about complaining about the e-ring that *I* picked out, but hopefully DF will understand when I talk to him. . .

 

[sunkist]

What about putting your e-ring on a 2mm plain band. Then the center stone would stand out for sure without sparklies competing directly beside it. And you could keep your shared prong wedding band because I still don''t think it would compete too much with your center stone if it''s the only eternity band.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/7/2006 8:31:19 PM
Author:peonygirl
I have a lovely 1.23 carat Whiteflash ACA, but unfortunately I'm not loving the setting anymore, especially how it looks with the matching wedding band. I just feel like it's not delicate enough, and the center stone gets lost in the thickness of the combined bands. I'm not getting married until next year, but I was wearing the two bands around the house today for fun when it really started to bother me. I've attached a picture of the ring set, which is a little blurry.

As some of you may remember, I originally wanted a 1.8-2.0 mm shared-prong band, but SP said that in order for the band to be stable enough, the thinnest they could make is 2.3 mm. At the beginning I liked the e-ring setting (even though the thickness always bothered me a tiny bit), but with the combination of the wedding band it's just too much. I really want to wear both on the same hand when I get married. I still like the shared prong look a lot, so I'm thinking that we should maybe just try to get a thinner but otherwise identical set? I guess the other thing I could do is get a bigger center stone so my ring's proportions would suit me better, but that's not really in the budget now. I've seen a bunch of people on PS with super thing bands (teebee and others), and I wonder how they've been holding up.

I'd love some feedback! I feel a little guilty about complaining about the e-ring that *I* picked out, but hopefully DF will understand when I talk to him. . .

Honestly, I think that having an identical but thinner set made is going to set you back just as much as (if not more than) getting a bigger stone. Given the choice between those two, I'd rather increase the center stone.

If you really want thinner, I'd suggest going plain solitaire/plain band instead of diamond. There's enough metal to go down to 2mm and still be ok.

ETA: Honestly, I think it looks perfect on you as is.......and I think wearing it around the house for a day isn't really enough time to adapt to the look. When I first got my e-ring, I wore it alone for long that it looked odd when I added my w-ring. After a few weeks.......then my e-ring looked odd WITHOUT the w-ring. It's all in what your eye gets used to.

 

[peonygirl]

sunkist, I have been thinking about something like that too. I guess that I'm a little vain because I love getting the comments about how unique my e-ring is. If I had an average-sized round cut on a plain band, it just wouldn't feel unique anymore. If I was wearing it with my wedding band it wouldn't seem so plain, but it would still be a little more ordinary overall and less blingy. I know that with thinner bands it would be slighly less blingy too, but I'm okay with that.

 

[peonygirl]

aljdewey, I'm very curious to see what SP would charge us if we "exchanged" the old bands for new ones. The workmanship would probably be pricey, but perhaps the overall costs wouldn't be so great because we're exchanging larger diamonds for smaller ones? Or maybe I'm dreaming!

Edited to respond to your edit: I would agree with you except for the fact that I think my e-ring alone is too thick. I've been wearing it for 4 months, and the thickness still bothers me, especially from the top view.

 

[decodelighted]

Did ya see this thread today?

On the 2nd page of the thread a Pscoper named Morticia is having 2nd thoughts about HER ering because she thinks its TOO THIN.

Just thought that was interesting -- opposite problems, same day, both pre-wedding. Will stay tuned to see what ya decide.

p.s.-- as I said to Morticia, looks pretty darn GORGEOUS and perfect "as is" and "on you" to me!

 

[mrssalvo]

well, i''m as indecisive as they come when it comes to settings so I understand your thoughts and feelings. nothing wrong with wanting to change, lynn b just went from a shared prong set similar to your''s to a fishtail pave set that is more delicate and dainty. But, how will your fiance feel?? timing is everything and you''re not even married yet? you might scare the pants off him after you researched and chose the setting you did and only months later decided you want something different. what if you get something different, more $$ down the drain and you''re still not happy? You know your man, but I know mine would not be very excited for me to change my mind so quickly. I agree with saving a bit longer and waiting until you can upgrade to a larger stone. the set is beautiful and really does look so pretty on you and might not seem so think with a larger stone on top

 

[FireGoddess]

Date: 6/7/2006 8:51:48 PM
Author: decodelighted
Did ya see this thread today?

On the 2nd page of the thread a Pscoper named Morticia is having 2nd thoughts about HER ering because she thinks its TOO THIN.

Just thought that was interesting -- opposite problems, same day, both pre-wedding. Will stay tuned to see what ya decide.

p.s.-- as I said to Morticia, looks pretty darn GORGEOUS and perfect ''as is'' and ''on you'' to me!

Ditto, ditto, ditto! I think Morticia''s ring is perfection, and I think yours (even with a blurry picture) looks just DIVINE with your ering. Seriously. Your center stone still pops out at me. It does take time getting used to seeing both rings together.

I don''t think you will save any $ even by exchanging rings for one with smaller melee - with such small stones it''s more a labor thing than a melee cost thing. I wish I could just *POOF* and make you happy with your rings - they''re gorgeous together.

 

[Mara]

did i miss something? why would SP exchange a custom ring? you bought it, you paid for it, you wore it..it's yours right? did you ask them if they would 'exchange' things for you? or are you just hoping?

i think you'll probably end up eating these bands and buying new ones, if that is what is important to you by all means go for it.

i will say that having had a 1.29 and then a 1.60 and now a 2.3 that the band width doesn't mean that much, it's the center stone that does it for me. i used to think that my bands were too thick, well guess what? my stone was just too small. my bands look great now.

i'd save up and upgrade the center stone, not spend another $3-4k on the bands. esp if you are stuck with the first set of rings.

and 2.3mm to 2mm is NOT going to make a whit of visual difference to you in the long run with your stone size...i would just save up and get a bigger stone down the line.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/7/2006 8:42:19 PM
Author: peonygirl
aljdewey, I''m very curious to see what SP would charge us if we ''exchanged'' the old bands for new ones. The workmanship would probably be pricey, but perhaps the overall costs wouldn''t be so great because we''re exchanging larger diamonds for smaller ones? Or maybe I''m dreaming!

I think that''s more wishful thinking. There isn''t a huge difference in the prices of the stones....especially when the piece is quoted as a finished piece.

A HUGE chunk of the cost is the labor and metal....and that has to be done over again if it''s not stock. Plus, they cannot sell your set as "new", so they don''t recoup all the costs you''d think.

I hope it works the way you want it to, but I''d advise against getting your hopes up.

 

[pebbles]

Unless Signes Pieces has changed their return polices, they will not take refunds or exchanges after the 30 period unless there was something wrong with the ring itself (i.e. workmanship problems). I do not believe they will let you "exchange" the rings; they did not let me exchange my eternity band even though I was willing to buy something else.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

To be very honest, your bands already look plenty thin to me. I wouldn''t want them any thinner than that. Not to mention you will barely notice a difference between 2.0 and 2.3. I think you are really suffering from DSS and want your center stone to look larger in proportion to the bands. I don''t think making the bands thinner will solve your problem. I''m with Mara, mrssalvo, and whoever else said to save your money for an upgrade for the e-ring diamond. You would be throwing money away to have your rings remade again just a little thinner because you are unlikely to recoup the cost on these. A 1.5 center stone would probably make a big difference in your perception of the current rings.

 

[Rod]

peonygirl, I''m not making light of your situation, but thought this might apply??:

You have Diamond Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (DOCD), an illness many of us suffer from on this forum. DOCD, discovered by Dr. Brillianteering in the early 1900''s, is a manifestation of mental anomolies when perfectly sane individuals become the owners of high quality diamonds and the settings those diamond sit in. What typically occurs for an accurate DOCD diagnosis is euphoria upon the purchase of a nice gem or setting, followed by self doubt, and ultimately downright concern that the purchased stone or setting has somehow magically changed in appearance while the owner slept.

While there are no known medications available to combat DOCD, many people have reported the symptoms are reduced or completely eliminated by visiting chain jewelry stores, such as Zales or Kay, or having lunch with a friend who has jewelry of poorer quality than the DOCD sufferer.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/8/2006 10:46:55 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
To be very honest, your bands already look plenty thin to me. I wouldn''t want them any thinner than that. Not to mention you will barely notice a difference between 2.0 and 2.3. I think you are really suffering from DSS and want your center stone to look larger in proportion to the bands. I don''t think making the bands thinner will solve your problem. I''m with Mara, mrssalvo, and whoever else said to save your money for an upgrade for the e-ring diamond. You would be throwing money away to have your rings remade again just a little thinner because you are unlikely to recoup the cost on these. A 1.5 center stone would probably make a big difference in your perception of the current rings.

I seriously agree that she will likely not see an appreciable difference between 2.0 and 2.3mm.

But, if it satisfies her MENTAL requirement, that''s something to consider.....just as others have to satisfy their mental hangups about clarity grade (eyeclean vs. mindclean) or carat weight (.998 vs. 1.0).

This just happened with Lynn.....she wanted thinner bands, and her bands were already pretty thin to begin with. Having said that, she did it anyway (at her expense), and she WAY prefers the new fishtail pave. The aesthetic look of that arrangement does appear thinner even if it doesn''t measure a great deal thinner.

I''d still agree with most, though, and vote to apply the $$ against a larger stone.

 

[allycat0303]

Peony: I went through this a few months ago. My setting had started to look bulky and massive to me. I got really obsessed with the Vera Wang setting for my stone....but I went to try it on at the store, and my obsession ended. I have smallish fingers 4.25, and for me anyways, it was too thin. The thing with that band is that it doesn''t look like diamonds per say. The diamonds are very, very small, and it looks like a glimmer instead of *sparkle* honestly, it''s very lovely but much, much more low key/discreet then what you have. After I tried it on, I put it out of my head.

I think of it bothers you, go to the store, try it on and mull it over. It might not be exactly to your tastes. And a bigger stone is also an ideal solution. It''s funny because I thought Mara''s set, the bands look a tad large with her 1.6 stone, now with the ginormous 2.36, they look really thin. It''s all about proportions.

 

[diamondfan]

Sometimes you have to have lived with something, played around with it, before you are really certain about how it will work...do not beat yourself up about it, just try to find a solution that you and your guy are happy with...

 

[Mara]

i totally agree re the settings being 'mind clean' for PG...i guess the Q is what would be MORE mind clean, a larger stone or thinner bands and no larger stone? hehee. for me it's the larger stone in the long-term and keeping the bands the same. lynn is not a good example, because she is CRAZEE. just kidding lynn, i love you.

but you are just a little crazee. good thing you are cute.

and you noted what i noticed too ally...i always felt like my bands were too thick before but now i realize it was just the stone size. not that i am saying that everyone should have a 2.3 (but wouldn't it be nice?!!?!?) but it really is about the width of the bands in relation to the stone, and PG if this is not the stone you will have forever, then don't change your bands out, just change the stone!

i don't think i would really want thinner bands now, well MAYBE if in the future i couldn't upgrade my stone again i would opt for getting two super thin maybe non diamond bands for a visual oomph and change, but i feel kind of like if i got a thinner band with diamonds and plunked this stone on top it would be too top heavyish and floppy. my setting already flops a little since it's a little loose. but also my rings are 2.7mm and 2.3mm so it's a big diff from 2.3 already!! if i went to 2mm and 2mm i'd be at 4mm and not 5mm. but to change from 4.6mm to 4? i don't think it would visually be that magnificent to satisfy that mental itch for larger.

 

[decodelighted]

One other quick suggestion before you do a massive, expensive overhaul .... try your existing e-ring on with a very thin platinum band. 1.8? 2.0? That may also produce the "thin" look you''re going for & emphasize the truly already delicate look of your e-ring. And make your existing centerstone POP. The "busy" look you''re responding too might be ALL THE DIAMONDS, not the size of the diamonds or the width of the bands per se. And your ering would still be "unique & blingy".

p.s. -- if you do change something major, I agree with the "upgrade the stone" camp ... for the 2-3K you''d spent re-setting into new, almost identical bands -- you could get a noticable mm size difference in the STONE, which would have more lasting value than ANOTHER set of bands. What do grammas say -- don''t throw good money after bad?

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 6/8/2006 10:46:55 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

... Not to mention you will barely notice a difference between 2.0 and 2.3.

I just went from two 2.3mm bands to two 2.1mm bands. One ring alone may not be much of a difference... but with TWO rings (e-ring and w-ring) it did make (to me, anyway) a noticable visual difference.

Whatever the original poster decides to do is certainly up to her (hey, I am NO ONE to throw stones!

)... but I did just want to throw in my 2 cents above!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 6/8/2006 11:59:09 AM
Author: Mara

lynn is not a good example, because she is CRAZEE. just kidding lynn, i love you.

but you are just a little crazee. good thing you are cute.

LOL!

And don't worry - no offense taken!
Just a "little" CRAZEE?! Heck, THAT'S a compliment!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I also think this totally has to do with one''s financial situation. Those of us who are, um, a little older and already have houses, cars, and kids paid for (well, not quite!), then if we want to change out $3000 settings here and there, then that''s a totally different story than a young couple starting out and saving to buy a house, have babies, etc. Of course, if you''re married to Donald Trump, Jr. or something, then we''d be happy to see you get a new set of rings every aniversary! So please post them if you do!!!

(That was intended for anyone out there, not just pg).

 

[peonygirl]

Heheh, I think I may be half-convinced that what I need *is* a bigger stone. Darn, if only I wasn't a 2nd year in a 5 year grad program and my DF wasn't a 5th year in an 8 year grad program, we might actually have some income to save up.



Edited to add: So how much bigger do you think the stone would have to be to make a significant difference in how I felt about the setting? 1.5 carats? 1.7 carats? At what point would the head of my ring not fit another stone? My ring is set very low, so I'm worried that what's left of the prongs won't be enough for a bigger stone and I'd have to buy a new setting anyway.

 

[Demelza]

PG -- I don't know if this helps, but I had the exact same set as you. My rings were about 2.3 mm as well. At most, they were 2.4, but I'm almost sure my appraisal says 2.3 mm. I've had a 1.5 ct stone in this setting and, most recently, a 2.3 ct stone. Here are 2 pics for you to compare to see whether a bigger stone would do the trick.

Here's the 2.3 ct:

ETA Hmmm, I wonder if this pic is too close up....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 6/8/2006 2:28:52 PM
Author: peonygirl
Heheh, I think I may be half-convinced that what I need *is* a bigger stone. Darn, if only I wasn''t a 2nd year in a 5 year grad program and my DF wasn''t a 5th year in an 8 year grad program, we might actually have some income to save up.



Edited to add: So how much bigger do you think the stone would have to be to make a significant difference in how I felt about the setting? 1.5 carats? 1.7 carats? At what point would the head of my ring not fit another stone? My ring is set very low, so I''m worried that what''s left of the prongs won''t be enough for a bigger stone and I''d have to buy a new setting anyway.

Well, those grad degrees will hopefuly pay off later on and allow you to get that upgrade!!!

All you''d have to do is have a larger head put on. If I am not mistaken, I think Mara is on about her third stone with the same setting? So that is not a big deal. You would need a larger head if you go up much in size. I think you''d notice a big difference at 1.5-1.6, but you could even go to 1.7-1.8 and still avoid the 2.0 carat big price jump. For me personally, I tried on a 1.6 and that is about as big as I''d feel comfortable wearing in my particular world. (Actually I have decided to go smaller than that.)

 

[Demelza]

Here is my set with the 1.5. Sorry the pics are so bad. Hope this helps you visualize.

 

[Mara]

You can have a new head put on your ring and still keep the same rings (sorry PG..hehe)...the head is probably like $200 or so or even less depending on what you get. I had the same head for a 1.29 and a 1.6c stone, so you''d probably be fine with the same head too, they just would seat the diamond a little lower and scoop the prongs out a bit. I only had to get a new head when I jumped again. The 1.60 was full.

 

[peonygirl]

Demelza, do you happen to have a pic of your whole hand? That''s one gorgeous diamond!

Diamondseeker, can new heads be put on all rings? The head of my ring looks like it''s part of my band, not just attached. I will try to post a picture later today.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Demelza, you ended up with the Superbcert Tiffany, right? Have you been happy with that decision? I am debating about that setting right now but will have a smaller stone than you do. So I''m not positive how it would look. I hate trying to pick out a setting without trying them on! (please excuse the diversion, pg!)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 6/8/2006 3:07:12 PM
Author: peonygirl
Demelza, do you happen to have a pic of your whole hand? That''s one gorgeous diamond!

Diamondseeker, can new heads be put on all rings? The head of my ring looks like it''s part of my band, not just attached. I will try to post a picture later today.

I am not a jeweler, but I don''t think that''s a big deal. They just cut out the old and put in new one, I think. I''m sure Mara knows.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 6/8/2006 3:07:12 PM
Author: peonygirl
Demelza, do you happen to have a pic of your whole hand? That''s one gorgeous diamond!


Diamondseeker, can new heads be put on all rings? The head of my ring looks like it''s part of my band, not just attached. I will try to post a picture later today.

I don''t have one of my whole hand, but these might be a tad better?? This is, again, the 2.35 ct.