To halo or not to halo, THAT is the question!

[Anonymous]

It's probably a question that's been asked many times before, but here goes. I've been contemplating the idea of converting my solitaire (see avatar pic) into a halo, but I'm not sure. It's a .63 with great sparkle and I LOVE it, but I'd like a bit more finger coverage without 1. spending thousands upon thousands and 2. without having to give up my diamond for sentimental reasons. It's also something that I don't see myself doing in the very near future, but I can't seem to stop wondering if it's even possible to find what I'd like.

I hesitate because I've seen a few halos that I LOVE, and more than a few that have made me go "ew". I don't like the "a lot of metal around a tiny diamond" look. Does that make sense? I want a halo setting, without a gap between the halo and the center stone, and a more seamless look. Is that possible, or do I need to just get over it already? hehe

If someone has a setting like this, would you mind showing me pics?

Thanks!!

 

[atroop711]

I think you should def. look into it. I know what you mean by all halos aren't created equal. I also wanted a halo (I love the antique inspired look) but I also wanted the finger coverage that our wallet couldn't afford..so the halo was a great compromise.

I did work with Whiteflash to custom make what I wanted and love what they did for me. If I were you I would look at diff. halos, save pics of the things you like and when you're ready to work with a jeweler, send them the pics so they could get a good idea of what you want. If they don't have it in stock than maybe you can have it made for you.

Either way..have fun and good luck!

 

[iluvcarats]

This is my halo. The diamonds in the halo are tiny and there is no gap. It is from Michael b.
Leon Mege also does nice halos.

 

[SparkleNut]

I'm kind of in the same boat you are tammy. I have a .50ct marquise that my Mom gave me awhile back, but I still don't know what type of halo I want. I got a quote from BGD for just a metal halo, but now I'm not sure if I want a diamond halo or not. I do know if I go with a diamond halo I want a air line between the stone and halo, but still which do I do. Plus I've got that east or west thing going on, which I had the BGD quote done with a east to west. Check out alot of different places, I sure now I am. I just wish I could make up my mind.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I just picked up my ring today that was reset into a Harry Winston inspired halo - I went with a very very delicate halo. I am still in shock at the size difference and I wasn't going for a size uplift.

 

[PavePrincess]

HALO!!! I loved the halo look from the beginning.. provided it's done RIGHT. I've seen so many ugly halos @ a few mall stores. In fact, I pointed a few out to my friend when we were browsing at Kays (not that you would get it from there). If you get one, seriously consider getting it custom made. With halos (most of the time) you can easily spot a custom from a stock. More than the extra finger coverage, I love the extra bling..

That being said.. I love abbyful's (???) ring.. It's gorgeous. She did it on a budget and it's just fabulous. Yay for halos!

 

[susimoo]

I just picked up my ring today that was reset into a Harry Winston inspired halo - I went with a very very delicate halo. I am still in shock at the size difference and I wasn't going for a size uplift.

Charmypoo!!!!! Pictures please!!!!

Tammy

I think this is something we have all considered, because if it is done right, it adds to your original diamond and best of all it gives finger coverage at a lot less expense.
Do you have any example of what you want done? Or do you have any vendor in mind?

I am sure someone could give you a review or information about how best to go about it!

I will continue to check your thread as you have asked the question that is currently perplexing me too!!!

Good luck!

 

[chicky monkey]

If you're looking for more finger coverage on a smaller stone, a halo is a perfect way to accomplish this!

Plus I think the look is timeless. It's been argued here that halos will go out of style, but I disagree. I think it's a classic, beautiful look that will have lots of longevity.

Leon has just finished a ring for me with a large center stone, thus no halo (doesn't need it). However, the old ering has a 1 ct RB that I intend to have him reset into a new ring WITH a halo to give that stone size and drama. If you search PS, you will see some pretty plain stones/settings become KACHOW when set into a halo!

Good luck!

 

[anitabee]

let me first start off my saying i'm not much of a halo fan. so there's my bias, right off the bat...

i'm not sure everyone is fooled by the "finger coverage" a halo gives you. if you're wanting your stone to appear bigger, don't bother to spend the money on a halo - spend it to upgrade the size of your rock! or add sidestones.

up until about 7 or so years ago, halos were not seen or if they were, they weren't in vogue. my attitude is that they're sort of like an updated cluster ring. not a fan of the cluster ring.

my guess is that in a few more years they'll be outdated.

you asked to "halo or not halo" and that's my opinion!

 

[kristalulu]

Here are a couple not-so-typical halos. Well, the first one is considered a crescent ring, but gives some extra finger coverage:
Boomersgirl's Mark Patterson: viewtopic.php?t=111681
And mom2twogirls' Tacori 2620: viewtopic.php?t=86248

I love both of these!!

 

[LAG2010]

my halo doesn't have a gap, and that was very important to me. i wanted the paves to be flush against the stone. here's a pic.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow thank you for all of the responses, and honest opinions! I browsed through the Collection of Halos thread (droooool!) and realized that the two that I loved the most ended up being the same exact setting. It's the Tacori 2620 without pave on the sides, but both of the examples that I saw photos of had much larger center stones than I do...so maybe that has something to do with it.

I think it's something I'll definitely consider, but won't pull the trigger on for a bit (to save some extra $$ and to make sure that it's what I *really* want long term). I might take my ring back to the jeweler where we got my setting and see if it's possible to use the shank from my current ring and a new halo head since I do love my setting.

Thanks again ladies, the input helps!

Ooooh Lag2010 just posted hers while I was typing...I love that one too. Argh!

ETA: and now that I take a closer look, I really like how iluvcarats' ring looks even better than the Tacori 2620. You ladies have such beautiful rings!

 

[Winks_Elf]

I'm also on the fence about halos. We have a family stone coming our way that measures 6.25mm and it's a transitional cut with no visible culet. I adore halos, but not sure how much I'll love it 10 years from now. I know that halos can actually protect the center stone from getting knocked around, as well as make them look larger. I see so many gorgeous pieces that it's hard to pick that one set that will be gracing my hand for the next 40 years.

Fortunately, I'm not looking to get it set any time soon.

 

[Amethyste]

I went from a Halo to a 3 stone... Glad I did...

 

[risingsun]

I think a well designed halo is a timeless ring. I love mine. I went from a five stone ring to the halo. The center stone is 1.62ct. There is no airline and the shank is a knifepoint with micropave. I knew when I saw it that it was my forever ring. I'm posting a large pic to show the detail. I had a curved wedding band made to custom to fit the halo, as I don't care for gaps between my rings. This is prong set halo, which I prefer. I think that the center stone blends seamlessly with the halo.

 

[rosetta]

I do think halos are the modern version of an illusion setting. I like them for coloured stones, not so much for diamonds. Definitely not for my e ring as I much prefer a classic solitaire. It's just timeless.

They are so common now that I'm a bit put off them to be honest. And I'm not keen on using them just to make a small stone look bigger. You're not fooling anyone if you're trying that, surprisingly some people think they are! Not PSers of course

But I think I'm in the minority in not favouring them for e rings. I would keep them for right rings or coloured stones myself.

Just my two cents!

 

[rosetta]

I do think halos are the modern version of an illusion setting. I like them for coloured stones, not so much for diamonds. Definitely not for my e ring as I much prefer a classic solitaire. It's just timeless.

They are so common now that I'm a bit put off them to be honest. And I'm not keen on using them just to make a small stone look bigger. You're not fooling anyone if you're trying that, surprisingly some people think they are! Not PSers of course

But I think I'm in the minority in not favouring them for e rings. I would keep them for right rings or coloured stones myself.

Just my two cents!

 

[iluvcarats]

Funny how we all have different opinions. I'm in the opposite camp. I find solitaires common and well, boring. To me, a solitaire doesn't say "classic", it says "just like everybody else" But I find the setting just as compelling as the diamond.

Just my .02

 

[risingsun]

I do think halos are the modern version of an illusion setting. I like them for coloured stones, not so much for diamonds. Definitely not for my e ring as I much prefer a classic solitaire. It's just timeless.

They are so common now that I'm a bit put off them to be honest. And I'm not keen on using them just to make a small stone look bigger. You're not fooling anyone if you're trying that, surprisingly some people think they are! Not PSers of course

But I think I'm in the minority in not favouring them for e rings. I would keep them for right rings or coloured stones myself.

Just my two cents!

Where I am from, halos are mainly seen around colored stones. Having a 1.62 ct stone, I am hardly using a halo for the purpose of increasing size substantially. It did give it a boost, but IRL,the halo stones are tiny. I would like to see your ring, so I may critique it. I have had pages of compliments about my halo on this forum. I am not saying that I'm in love with all halos, but many of them are stunning. What a sweeping remark to make about this style and I do especially thank you for posting it under my HOF treasure. While you have the right to express your opinion, I do think that you stepped over the line. Most PS members have learned to appreciate different cuts and styles, even if they don't choose them for their own. BTW, halos have been around for many years and are not a new trend. They are featured in antique and antique reproduction rings, as well. Well...that felt better

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

Funny how we all have different opinions. I'm in the opposite camp. I find solitaires common and well, boring. To me, a solitaire doesn't say "classic", it says "just like everybody else" But I find the setting just as compelling as the diamond.

Just my .02

Ditto, I need something visually interesting to look at.

 

[risingsun]

I do think halos are the modern version of an illusion setting. I like them for coloured stones, not so much for diamonds. Definitely not for my e ring as I much prefer a classic solitaire. It's just timeless.

They are so common now that I'm a bit put off them to be honest. And I'm not keen on using them just to make a small stone look bigger. You're not fooling anyone if you're trying that, surprisingly some people think they are! Not PSers of course

But I think I'm in the minority in not favouring them for e rings. I would keep them for right rings or coloured stones myself.

Just my two cents!

Where I am from, halos are mainly seen around colored stones. Having a 1.62 ct stone, I am hardly using a halo for the purpose of increasing size substantially. It did give it a boost, but IRL,the halo stones are tiny. I would like to see your ring, so I may critique it. I have had pages of compliments about my halo on this forum. I am not saying that I'm in love with all halos, but many of them are stunning. What a sweeping remark to make about this style and I do especially thank you for posting it under my HOF treasure. While you have the right to express your opinion, I do think that you stepped over the line. Most PS members have learned to appreciate different cuts and styles, even if they don't choose them for their own. BTW, halos have been around for many years and are not a new trend. They are featured in antique and antique reproduction rings, in addition to the classics of many prestigious collections. Well...that felt better

 

[risingsun]

It's probably a question that's been asked many times before, but here goes. I've been contemplating the idea of converting my solitaire (see avatar pic) into a halo, but I'm not sure. It's a .63 with great sparkle and I LOVE it, but I'd like a bit more finger coverage without 1. spending thousands upon thousands and 2. without having to give up my diamond for sentimental reasons. It's also something that I don't see myself doing in the very near future, but I can't seem to stop wondering if it's even possible to find what I'd like.

I hesitate because I've seen a few halos that I LOVE, and more than a few that have made me go "ew". I don't like the "a lot of metal around a tiny diamond" look. Does that make sense? I want a halo setting, without a gap between the halo and the center stone, and a more seamless look. Is that possible, or do I need to just get over it already? hehe

If someone has a setting like this, would you mind showing me pics?

Thanks!!

I posted my halo ring for you in this thread, It has no airline and tiny stones, IRL. The metal work is barely visible, with the exception of the milgrain. I does have a seamless look between the diamond and the halo. It is definitely possible to achieve the design you desire. I hope that you find the ring of your dreams!

 

[togal]

Hey "Rising Sun"....I love, love, love your ring....and yes it is timeless and, in my opinion, a perfect halo setting.....and yes, halos do enhance the look of the size of the ring....there's no question about it. You can call it an "illusion"....or whatever...it's just darn pretty to look at, so I don't see what difference it should make. The more diamonds, the merrier! I'm actually waiting for my new halo setting to arrive, and your ring, plus a few others, with a similar seamless look were my inspirations. I can't wait to get it, and post pics. Don't let comments by others get to you. Everyone has an opinion. It is polite, though, unless asked, to keep negative opinions about someones elses ring to themselves. No two people are alike, and everyone's taste varies to some degree....so there's little point in others giving unsolicited opinions about other peoples pride & joy. What's the point?

 

[risingsun]

Hey "Rising Sun"....I love, love, love your ring....and yes it is timeless and, in my opinion, a perfect halo setting.....and yes, halos do enhance the look of the size of the ring....there's no question about it. You can call it an "illusion"....or whatever...it's just darn pretty to look at, so I don't see what difference it should make. The more diamonds, the merrier! I'm actually waiting for my new halo setting to arrive, and your ring, plus a few others, with a similar seamless look were my inspirations. I can't wait to get it, and post pics. Don't let comments by others get to you. Everyone has an opinion. It is polite, though, unless asked, to keep negative opinions about someones elses ring to themselves. No two people are alike, and everyone's taste varies to some degree....so there's little point in others giving unsolicited opinions about other peoples pride & joy. What's the point?

Thank you togal I'm flattered that you love my ring and you used it--among others--for your inspiration. I have lost my tolerance for people offering opinions that go beyond the scope of the question which is asked. Seriously....

 

[rosetta]

Er risingsun, my comments have nothing to do with you. In fact, I didn't even realise they were under your post. Sorry if I offended you. I think your ring is very pretty.

I was answering the OPs question: to halo or not. My answer is no, but that's just a personal preference of course. Someone else just said solitaires are common and boring, but I'm not taking any offence at that. It's her opinion and I'm fine with it.

I'm not sure if I'll ever post pics of my e ring, but if anyone ever calls it boring, that is a-ok with me. I've got thick skin.

 

[Laila619]

Halo, halo, halo! Go for it!

 

[sunseeker101]

Another fence-sitter here. I used to have a halo and loved it for its finger-coverage properties, but in time I came to feel that it was making the stone look smaller (i.e. when I would see a halo I'd automatically think 'that diamond needed obvious enhancement'). If I had been a brass-tacks halo-lover I couldn't have ended up thinking this, of course. So I'd say only go for the halo if it's the actual halo that you love and not just the finger-coverage effects. My way around the 'subtle' enhancement problem was to place a larger (yes, not too economical ) stone into a setting with a tapered shank and graduated diamonds. HTH a bit

 

[jaysonsmom]

Personally I'd only halo a stone <1ct because of the size of my finger (I'm around a 5 at the base, I wear 5.5 for my huge knuckles). I say personally because I don't want to be too noticed....I think any ring >8mm in diameter (with or without halo) will get too much attention.

I the size of your stone would look enhanced with a halo, and have good finger coverage too.

 

[Circe]

I think it's all about the specific ring - it's hard to say "I hate X" about any style, as there's always going to be an exception to the rule. That said, I'm not fond of halos where the width of the center stone is matched or exceeded by the width of the halo - to me, that does look sort of cocktail-y. That's not to say that it looks *bad,* just to be clear: I love a good cocktail ring! But it can look like something more suited to a special occasion than to everyday.

But a nice delicate halo, like the crescent ring somebody posted above? ::swoon:: It's an additional bit of visual interest, and if it happens to perform the optical illusion of making a stone look bigger ... why not?

 

[risingsun]

Er risingsun, my comments have nothing to do with you. In fact, I didn't even realise they were under your post. Sorry if I offended you. I think your ring is very pretty.

I was answering the OPs question: to halo or not. My answer is no, but that's just a personal preference of course. Someone else just said solitaires are common and boring, but I'm not taking any offence at that. It's her opinion and I'm fine with it.

I'm not sure if I'll ever post pics of my e ring, but if anyone ever calls it boring, that is a-ok with me. I've got thick skin.

Saying that halos are "common" and that "no one on PS is fooled by their size," did not sound like a simple opinion to me. It came across as a snark. Someone else called solitaires "boring and common" as a way to mirror your own words. Look at the placement of that post.

We have had some threads turned into snark fests, lately, by posters overstepping boundaries. It's not my job to moderate these threads, but I am entitled to my opinion,too. Thank you for the apology and the compliment. Let's try to put this behind us.