Thoughts on this setting

[NoobInNeed]

I was hoping to get peoples' thoughts on how this ring looks. My girlfriend wants a round stone on a setting with sidestones. I'm not sure her size yet, but she's a petite girl so I assume she has small hands. I just want to make sure this setting won't look too thick or big on her hand. Also, I'm interested to know if people think the lines of the setting look nice and classic. I'm not sure why similar settings on other sites (eg. white flash) are $1,200+...

Thanks

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I like it, but personally I prefer this one from BGD-it''s $950 but I think the basket head is more elegant and "high-end" looking, plus I prefer the general look.

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/home/ring-details/?product_id=5484

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 3/25/2010 2:13:12 PM
Author: Bella_mezzo
I like it, but personally I prefer this one from BGD-it''s $950 but I think the basket head is more elegant and ''high-end'' looking, plus I prefer the general look.


http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/home/ring-details/?product_id=5484

ditto...

and here''s a clickable version of bella''s link:


http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/home/ring-details/?product_id=5484

side note: bella, i saw on another thread where you said you had a mac and couldn''t make links clickable. I have a mac too and would be happy to tell you how to do it if you''d like

 

[tyty333]

It ok...not great, but ok. It is a tiny bit on the wider sides and if you ask me the stones on the side
seem to stop abruptly a little short. They should have carried them on for a few more stones.

Its definitely not one of my favorites.

I hope you wanted an honest opinion.

I like the BGD ring (posted above) more if that is the style you are after. It is thinner and has 5 stones on
each side (they are smaller though) and its a thinner band.

 

[NoobInNeed]

Thanks! I take it Brian Gavin is a highly respected jeweler/site on this forum...

Honest opinions are the only ones I ever want. I can blow smoke up my own ____

I wish these other sites had the vast number of angles and images that JA has. The BGD diamond looks like it would be quite nice, but I don't think the top image does the setting justice. The sidestones look like ball bearings.

I don't think I really liked how the JA setting tapers in near the center stone. Here is another JA setting. It looks like it as wide as the first one, but it's width is only 2.6mm. The first JA was 3.1-2.8mm (???) and the BGD setting is 2.4mm.

Is BlueNile respected? Did I read that BGD offers a discount to PS forum members?

 

[cemrn]

The second JA one is an improvement but I still don''t love it. IMO the BGD looks more feminine. The JA one looks more chunky to me

 

[tyty333]

BGD is very respected. What do you mean by ball bearings? I guess I dont understand what you are saying
about the top view not doing it justice. I think it is prettier than the james allen.

I'm still not big on the second ring you picked out.

Yes, Bluenile is respected.

What about this one?
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/settings-with-sidestones/White-Gold-Engagement-Ring.html

or this one
http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/18k-White-Gold-2-6mm-Six-Prong-Pave-Set-Ring.html

 

[tyty333]

This one is a little more expensive but it does have a nice tapper and is feminine.

http://www.whiteflash.com/engagement-rings/sleek-line-pave-diamond-engagement-ring_1184.htm

Yes, whiteflash is a respected vendor!

 

[NoobInNeed]

Thanks for your comments. Female opinions are definitely helpful! Let me say this is only the second piece of jewelry I've ever purchased, the other one just being a larimar necklace.

I can understand how the ones you picked out are more feminine. My girlfriend and I both like simple elegance, but I'm much bigger than my girlfriend (14" taller!) so I suppose I can overlook the petite, feminine angle.

Is a "pave" setting just a setting with more sidestones than a "sidestone" setting? Can you explain your comments that the basket head in the BGD setting is more elegant than the JA setting(s)?

This one is pretty nice too.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

thanks Mrs. S-I got the links figured out on my mac. This is on my work PC and it always works as a link, not sure what happened...

Noob-Of the ones you''ve posted, I like the BGD and WF ones best.

If you are going for delicate you might prefer the pave bands more...

this is one I like a lot from James Allen.

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/pave/18k-White-Gold-2-6mm-Six-Prong-Pave-Set-Ring.html


I also love their fishtail pave...

I like WF and BGD b/c I think they are more careful about setting, and about ensuring your setting is a good proportion to your stone, than vendors like JA and BN.

 

[tyty333]

Date: 3/25/2010 3:20:19 PM
Author: NoobInNeed
Thanks for your comments. Female opinions are definitely helpful! Let me say this is only the second piece of jewelry I''ve ever purchased, the other one just being a larimar necklace.

I can understand how the ones you picked out are more feminine. My girlfriend and I both like simple elegance, but I''m much bigger than my girlfriend (14'' taller!) so I suppose I can overlook the petite, feminine angle.

Is a ''pave'' setting just a setting with more sidestones than a ''sidestone'' setting? Can you explain your comments that the basket head in the BGD setting is more elegant than the JA setting(s)?

This one is pretty nice too.

The nice thing about this ring is that it is a flush fit which means her wedding band will set flush with the ring.
On some of these other settings the basket/prongs for the main stone will push the wedding band out from
the engagement ring and it will not set flush.

 

[NoobInNeed]

After looking at settings more, I now have opinions of what I personally like and don't like. I like the look of 4 prongs better than 6. I don't seem to like cathedral settings either. I feel like I'm seeing too much metal and the diamond is being obscured. The BGD setting suggested is a perfect example in my opinion. It looks like if you looked at that ring from above, you'd see a metal ring around the diamond.

Again, I was given this setting as a suggested style by my girlfriend. For some reason, I can't seem to find settings that match that style exactly. If I'm trying to find something similar, should I be looking at "pave" or "sidestone" settings? To be honest, I'm not really sure the difference as many of both styles look quite similar. What are some reactions of these:

#1
#2
#3

Settings #1 and #3 look pretty similar with the exception of the prong design. The sidestones on #1 look like they stop a little short, though. #2 has the cathedral setting, but it doesn't seem as prevalent as the BGD setting. The sidestones look much bigger than the two others. I'm not sure if that makes it less feminine than the others or not.

Thanks again for your continued helpful feedback. I'm learnding.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 3/27/2010 8:52:55 AM
Author: NoobInNeed
After looking at settings more, I now have opinions of what I personally like and don''t like. I like the look of 4 prongs better than 6. I don''t seem to like cathedral settings either. I feel like I''m seeing too much metal and the diamond is being obscured. The BGD setting suggested is a perfect example in my opinion.

Again, I was given this setting as a suggested style by my girlfriend. For some reason, I can''t seem to find settings that match that style exactly. If I''m trying to find something similar, should I be looking at ''pave'' or ''sidestone'' settings? To be honest, I''m not really sure the difference as many of both styles look quite similar. What are some reactions of these:

#1
#2
#3

Settings #1 and #3 look pretty similar with the exception of the prong design. The sidestones on #1 look like they stop a little short, though. #2 has the cathedral setting, but it doesn''t seem as prevalent as the BGD setting. The sidestones look much bigger than the two others. I''m not sure if that makes it less feminine than the others or not.

Thanks again for your continued helpful feedback. I''m learnding.

For my personal preference, I like 3 the best. Mostly because it is the only one that looks like it would sit flush next to a band. Before you get too far into it, you might want to see if that matters to her or not. To me it always has and always will. I don''t like the little "donuts" at the base of the first two.

Compared to what your girlfriend posted, out of those three I would also pick the last. It looks like she likes a delicate look in general and I can see why you were looking at the others with less diamonds. I can''t tell if those are channel set or bead set stones in her pic though.

 

[NoobInNeed]

Thanks, Jean. When you say "donuts" in the first two, are you referring to the cathedral/basket the diamond sits in? The first one seems less not noticeable than the second. If that is what you're referring to, isn't that the same basket head look described previously in this thread as more elegant and "high-end" looking?

I believe I remember her saying that she doesn't plan on regularly wearing her wedding band, but plans on always wearing her engagement ring. Is that normal or did my selective hearing fail me on this occasion?

 

[hmr_mama]

Date: 3/27/2010 9:30:02 AM
Author: NoobInNeed
Thanks, Jean. When you say ''donuts'' in the first two, are you referring to the cathedral/basket the diamond sits in? The first one seems less not noticeable than the second. If that is what you''re referring to, isn''t that the same basket head look described previously in this thread as more elegant and ''high-end'' looking?

I believe I remember her saying that she doesn''t plan on regularly wearing her wedding band, but plans on always wearing her engagement ring. Is that normal or did my selective hearing fail me on this occasion?

When Jean says ''donuts'' she means the metal that sticks out (ever so slightly) at the base of the ring (it is more present on #2). This ''donut'' will effect how flush your wedding ring will sit next to the ER. According to the info you''ve given us about your GF''s tastes I would say #3 would be your best choice. It is a lovely, feminine ring--and I think it will knock her socks off!

 

[NoobInNeed]

Thanks!

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of the holes on the inside of setting #3? Does it just allow the diamonds on the outside of the setting to sit more flush?

 

[NoobInNeed]

Jean, etal:

I was looking at setting #3 in more detail just now. I found that this image of the setting I liked the most is misleading. In that image, there is no visible spacing of the sidestones where they meet the center stone on each side. The sidestones continue under the center stone. In this image as well as this image of a recently purchased 1 carat ring on the same setting, you can definitely see the spacing on both sides of the center stone.

I like the look of the sidestones continuing to flow under the center stone very much. I like seeing less metal and it looks more elegant. I don't like the setting nearly as much with the spacing. Am I being too critical? Does a pave/sidestone ring even exist where there would be no spacing with a 1 carat center stone? Does the ring look good how it is or should I try to find something else?

Thanks again!

 

[clgwli]

Date: 3/29/2010 9:48:40 AM
Author: NoobInNeed
Jean, etal:

I was looking at setting #3 in more detail just now. I found that this image of the setting I liked the most is misleading. In that image, there is no visible spacing of the sidestones where they meet the center stone on each side. The sidestones continue under the center stone. In this image as well as this image of a recently purchased 1 carat ring on the same setting, you can definitely see the spacing on both sides of the center stone.

I like the look of the sidestones continuing to flow under the center stone very much. I like seeing less metal and it looks more elegant. I don''t like the setting nearly as much with the spacing. Am I being too critical? Does a pave/sidestone ring even exist where there would be no spacing with a 1 carat center stone? Does the ring look good how it is or should I try to find something else?

Thanks again!

Sorry I didn''t come back to answer your first question. I had a very busy weekend. But yes, the donuts are hmr_mama described. However it isn''t all that normal to wear an engagement ring only w/o a wedding band in my circle of friends and aquaintences. I do know some do with more elaborate settings, but not very often with a delicate look like you are going for.

The holes in the bottom of the ring are something all of mine have. I am not entirely sure what the point is because I never asked LOL. I guess I always assumed that it allowed for the diamont to sit lower and let more light in. Hopefully someone will know for sure. I am now curious myself.

The first picture vs the 2nd and 3rd are nearly impossible for me to compare. The last two were taken at an angle so you would see more metal since you are looking at it from the side. From the top it would look different. I do believe you would run into a similar look with the setting your GF picked out as well. Truly the size of the stone will make a difference in how that looks.

After seeing those pictures I would ask for a head on shot to see if it is too much or not. To me I would imagine that unless you had a really small stone it would look good in that setting. I *personally* do not mind metal showing, but as long as there isn''t a gap between the stone and the metal you are fine.

I think you are so wonderful to put so much thought into this. Your GF is a very lucky gal

 

[NoobInNeed]

What can I say? I'm anal retentive!

I understand your comment about being able to see the spacing if the ring is being shown at an angle. That is the case in the third image I linked. If you are not supposed to be able to see any spacing from a perfectly head on shot, though, then why can you see the spacing on the far (right) side as well as the left (near) side? All the JA shots are with a 1.0 carat diamond which is the size I'm shooting for.

The spacing issue does not seem to be apparent in this Blue Nile setting which looks quite similar to the previous one I was looking at. The same thing with this one which is less petite and with more stones.

 

[NoobInNeed]

I really like both of those BN settings I just posted most out of any I''ve seen yet. I personally like the 2.2mm setting best, but if she has petite hands, the 1.5 mm setting would probably be better. I''ll find her ring size out this weekend, but do the PS faithful sign off on either of them?

 

[lovemybling]

adding my 2 cents

I think the blue nile setting seem more angular, slightly harsh.

2 mm is still very thin I don''t know if I would go thinner than that.

She will more than likely want a wedding band down the road. I don''t know ANYONE that only wears an ering. They either wear both or just a wedding band on the days they are doing things where they don''t want to hurt the ering and want some thing low profile. Plus once she get use to wearing her ring she may want to add more bling at the time of the wedding.

Just wanting you to be prepared to get another ring.

 

[NoobInNeed]

What do you mean when you say it looks "angular" and, thusly, harsh? Does the 2.2mm setting have that same characteristic?

How can you tell how well a wedding band will wear with various e-rings?

 

[lovemybling]

If you look at the blue nile setting it looks more square where the channel meets the crown, where as the James Allen looks a little more rounded where it meets the crown

James Allen- this showes allitle more metal (if you look down towards the right of the screen they show you what bands match or work with this ring)

blue nile- this is more stone (at the bottom of this link they show you the matching band for this one as well)

Looking at both of these settings look pretty "flat" from their profiles so a band would sit nicely against it. Plain or with stones.


Hope this helps

 

[suzannea]

I like #3- I;ve seen many Blue Nile settings- they are usually pretty nice- the only concern if you are getting a stone less than .75 then I wold not recommended blue Nile- I''ve seen a lot of gap in between the stone and the ring- not really desirable. I also love the #3 JA setting-0 very pretty and nice for a petite girl. I''ve bought a stone from JA before and was very happy. Good luck!

 

[NoobInNeed]

Thanks LMB. Just so I know exactly what you''re talking about (and to prove how anal I am!), please look at this picture.

Figure 1 is of the BN setting. I''ve circled in red where I believe you''re meaning to say it looks more square. This is the area I was saying previously I felt looked better where you couldn''t see the channel meeting the crown. In Figure 2 you can see the same BN setting with a round stone set. You''ll notice you cannot see the channel meeting the crown so the squareness seems to be a moot point.

Figure 3 is the JA setting where I''ve circled in purple where I believe you were referring to as the channel being a little more rounded where it meets the crown. I agree it is slightly more rounded, but with the JA setting, you can actually see where it meets. That is the issue I was speaking of that made the BN setting(s) appeal more to me.

 

[lovemybling]

I see what you are saying... Yes, the blue nile looks like the side of the setting is hidden better on the blue nile. It also seem to have more of a stone pressence. which is what I think you are Really liking. If you want to compare apple to apples.

James Allen I think this ring is more similar to the one from blue nile you are looking at.

White flash or this one, has pice with matching wedding band

Brian Gavin


these are all similar to the Blue nile one, I think just so you can compare. (I don''t remember your budget) Just wanted to give more of the same look to compare.

 

[NoobInNeed]

LMB: That JA setting is stunning. I think that''s the one! I had just found this other JA setting, but I like the one you sent more and it''s not too much more expensive. More than I had originally wanted to spend, but I LOVE it.

Thanks so much!!!!!

 

[clgwli]

I just want to point one thing out. The look you are going for now reminds me nothing of what you posted that your g/f is interested. I understand you want delicate, but are you sure she likes pave settings?

The one you posted was either channel or bead set that looks like a channel set. These really don''t look the same to me. I also don''t know how flush that ring will set.

I am not saying these aren''t beautiful settings, but I would make sure she likes the look of no metal vs what you posted she likes. I like a little metal myself which is probably why I am pointing this out

 

[NoobInNeed]

In that regard, is the original #3 setting more similar to the one she suggested?

I'll ask her mom to do some recon on that. She's in on it now and they're going away this weekend with her sister. She said she's going to inpromptu stop at a jewelry store to figure out her size. I'll tell her to see if she can make sure the setting will be loved. The Jared's example she gave could have been better...

 

[clgwli]

I do think that JA you posted just now is closer in feel to what she gave you. However since her mom and sister are in on it, I am sure you can find out for sure what she really likes and is going for (in addition to the size). I do think pave settings are beautiful, they just aren''t my favorite. So please don''t think there is anything wrong with them at all, it''s a matter of preference.

Are you able to show either her sister or her mom this thread to see if they can find similar types of seettings (even if only a gemstone ring to throw her off) to see what she thinks?