Thoughts / concerns ~ WF 3-stone trellis vs ''trois brillant'' setting

[tevyk]

Relatively new to posting here (2nd thread!), but have been lurking on and off for years (and LOTS more of late).

Sorry this is sort of long and ramble-y!

Background info: A couple years ago, my girlfriend would've said she wanted a solitaire in white gold. While casually looking / discussing friends' rings and such over the past year or two, I brilliantly mentioned that I thought some of the 3-stones were awfully pretty .... these days, her preference would be a 3-stone in platinum. Fortunately at least, my tastes are the same.

For my center diamond, I'd prefer the upper end of the .75 - .89c range, with .2-.25 sides (perhaps the lower end of *this* range? I really want the center to stand out...). Round brilliants ... most likely ACA stones. ETA: .2 sides with a .75 center or .25 sides with a .9-1ct center, if I went that big)

Links to WF for the settings I'm talking about. Note that if you click on the 'thumbnail' picture shown, you get a bigger version of a *different* picture, which is nice and shows some different angles:
http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/3Stone/-Trois-Brillant-_1031.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/3Stone/3-Stone-Trellis-Ring_1135.htm#

So I've been torn between the 'trois brilliant' and the 3-stone trellis. I really like the look of WF's 3-stone trellis -- Jamie said they could bring the side settings down a bit for the RB to look more like the 3-stone princess trellis does when you click the enlarged picture.

I like the trellis it even more after the B&M jeweler I went to yesterday had me compare standard solitaire baskets vs a solitaire trellis they do (they didn't have a 3-stone trellis, but offered to make one for 2.5-3k, side stones not included).

On the other hand, the band on the trellis seems *awfully* wide -- 4mm vs 2.5mm for the trois brillant. The .2ct sides would be smaller than the band!
To give an idea, a picture that Jamie sent of the trellis with a .75ct center is attached. Compare to picture of trois brillant with similarly sized diamonds. [I think the sides in these pictures are ~.25ct -- I'd probably go slightly smaller on the sides or bigger on the center to get the look I was going for]

My girlfriend's ring size is a 5.5, and she typically wears fairly 'dainty' jewelery.

Advice? Suggestions?

(feeling a bit down today after I was ready to buy, and someone snatched up this before I found out what I needed to do to reserve a stone from WF =/ )

 

[tevyk]

And here''s the .75ct trois brillant I promised

Yikes, these pictures show up big. If they''re too big, someone let me know and I''ll update and resize.

 

[Maisie]

I prefer the trellis. Can''t Whiteflash change the size of the band for you? You might have to pay a bit extra as it might be classed as custom but it would be worth it

 

[tevyk]

Additional info:
My current budget goal is in the (somewhat flexible) 6-6.5k ballpark. I'm toying with the idea of increasing that by 30% or so to the 8-9k ballpark. I know, I know .. "you can always upgrade later", but my girlfriend is the type who would insist on keeping the original for sentimental reasons rather than getting something bigger because it's bigger and shinier.

I'd much rather get it right the first time, though I care more about everything fitting in proportion (and of course diamond quality) than I do about size. I have the cash for either option if needed, but AMEX is giving me 0% for 15 months on purchases, so I'll be able to finish grad school before parting with my money

Date: 5/7/2008 4:33:54 PM
Author: Maisie
I prefer the trellis. Can't Whiteflash change the size of the band for you? You might have to pay a bit extra as it might be classed as custom but it would be worth it

I mentioned my concern about the trellis band width to Jamie, who replied with something about top-heavy designs like the 3-stone trellis needing that width to keep the ring structurally sound.

 

[Deelight]

I prefer the first one I think the look flows better

 

[tevyk]

Another thing that would almost certainly be helpful would be if anyone has finger pictures of either of these WF settings on a size 5-6 finger. I''d be most interested in seeing a picture of the trellis.

Bonus points if the diamonds are in the same size range I''m thinking about!

 

[mercoledi]

Well, if the trellis needs to be wider to be structurally sound, perhaps they could make it with more of a knife-edge, rather than rounded band. That may make it look daintier while protecting the stones.

Gorgeous choices by they way.

 

[purrfectpear]

HERE is an expert selection .90 AGS H SI1 stone from Whiteflash worth looking at.

 

[swingirl]

Another that is lower in price. You''d want WF to take a look at it and be specific about the inclusions but it wouldn''t bother me a bit with an ACA cut quality.

But you might just want to wait a bit and see if WF can let you know when another like the first comes in. Not all their stones end up on the website. Some are spoken for.

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-684405.htm#

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 5/7/2008 4:33:54 PM
Author: Maisie
I prefer the trellis. Can't Whiteflash change the size of the band for you? You might have to pay a bit extra as it might be classed as custom but it would be worth it

I agree I love the trellis. Have you seen Belle's 3 stone ring??? I love hers! Off to look for a link. Here it is

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wf-w-prong-heart-prongs.59362/

 

[tevyk]

purrfectpear: Hmm! To my extremely untrained eye, the idealscope on that ES stone looks pretty nice. Or the color of it, at least, even if the arrows aren''t perfect. Thanks for the suggestion!


swingirl: Jamie had actually pointed that one out to me earlier today.
Regarding the inclusion... that one under one of the "arrow shafts" kinda bothers me ... when I first looked at this stone, I noticed it pretty quickly even in the un-magnified image of the diamond and without knowing where the inclusions were. A ruler and some quick math tells me it shows up as about 5x on my screen. Jamie says "to locate the inclusion, it would require some effort at less than 3 inches from your naked eye", though that almost sounds like a canned response about SI2 diamonds.

Anyway, I called and put it on reserve for 24 hours. What do you all think of the diamond? At the moment, I''m leaning towards ''no''; I''m hesitant to buy something that I know isn''t eye-clean without seeing it in person. I''d be happy to spend up to ~4.5k for the right center stone.


Skippy:
Belle''s ring is pretty. That setting is listed as "3mm tapering to 2.4mm" .. I think it looks good on her finger, but I''d be concerned if mine was proportionately much bigger on my girlfriend''s finger. Belle''s finger is a 4.5, so that''s about 19% coverage with 3mm. 4mm on a 5.5 would be 24% (extrapolating from that coverage chart I''m sure you''ve all seen). Also, see the next post I''m about to make about me being overly analytical

Decisions, decisions, decisions...

 

[tevyk]

This was initially a 'help me find a diamond' post. Decided to make a separate thread for that and keep this one for discussing my setting.

edit: Here's the link to my 'diamond search' thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-search-75-89ct-h-a-for-wf-3-stone-platinum-setting.84832/