Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Torn between two settings, would love input!

B

bridgetshops

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
16
I am still very new to this forum in terms of posting, so please excuse me/direct me to the right section if I am posting in the wrong forum! :oops:


Alright, long story short: Original engagement ring was a three sided micro pave solitaire, with plain prongs, 4 sided. The shank was 3mm and just so uncomfortable to wear, because of this, I was given the okay to have my ring re-designed. (God bless him!)

I have been visiting jewelry stores in my area and then looking online, and when I saw Frankie's VC Emilya, I thought that was it! That's what I want--that is until I tried it on a round halo setting that was nearly identical (in style, not in craftmanship, VC is the man!). My diamond is 2.12 and measures a touch under 8.5mm--needless to say the halo was over the top. I am all for over the top but it did not flow well on my hand, despite looking absolutely incredible on Frankie/and other gals on here who have the halo. (For reference, I am a size 6)

So, I went and tried on a few pave solitaires and that was it--the heart fluttering, love this. I tried on the Michael B Petite Princess and it was love at first sight. He okayed a redesign (having my original ring redesigned (it's 1.2 carat weight of diamonds)) but not a new ring, so no new Michael B for me. What I want is a thinner shank (1.8mm-2.0mm), pave on the prongs, and I want to keep the three sided shank.

So looking at the Michael B three sided princess and then another setting here on pricescope by G Jezarian that I love, I am in a dilemma. Due to the size of the diamonds from my original e-ring my jeweler says she has to keep the shank at 2.2mm, (they're 1.3mm I believe) and I am afraid if we do a Michael B inspiration (inspo- there will be no middle triangle, just a diamond) it will be too bulky (for what I want, I want thin and delicate) as I also want diamonds all the way up the prongs.

For the basket head, I would want diamonds all the way up the prongs as well, and claw prongs, not split.

Honestly, I have come this far with decided what I like and now I feel like I am "paralyzed" and can't make a decision. A Michael B Princess inspo or a micro-pave basket?

(Honestly, I know this is a silly problem, but hopefully you all understand and can provide input!)



meredith2.jpg VS 80562-1.jpg
 
I vote for the GJ. It is more delicate. The MB setting looks bulky with the pave on the prongs. I know you want it though so.... It is really up to you. Personally I prefer basket to the MB style (not sure what that is called?).
 
Sarah-- I thought about purchasing that setting when I first saw it for sale, but then I'd have my original e-ring just hanging around (and fiance would not be happy) and I would want single claw prongs with diamonds on the tips. That setting is to-die for, obviously as I am using it as inspo!

I know, I am leaning towards the the GJ inspired, however, I just got off the phone with the jeweler and she said she's going to let me come pick up the wax she's made for the MB inspired ring and let me wear it around and see how I like it. She said she likes the basket head of the GJ ring, but she will also have to keep the shank at around 2.2 if I want the three sided. She loves the MB style the best, she's all for a "go big or go home" haha

One thing I do love about the MB, is how you cannot see the culet of the diamond on the undergallery. I am so nit picky on certain things, and I really don't like airlines, but those double sided prongs on the MB concern me with being too bulky.

I am so thankful this forum exists to help with these "problems" sometimes I feel like I drive my own self insane. :errrr: :loopy:
 
bridgetshops|1365102379|3420261 said:
Sarah-- I thought about purchasing that setting when I first saw it for sale, but then I'd have my original e-ring just hanging around (and fiance would not be happy) and I would want single claw prongs with diamonds on the tips. That setting is to-die for, obviously as I am using it as inspo!

I know, I am leaning towards the the GJ inspired, however, I just got off the phone with the jeweler and she said she's going to let me come pick up the wax she's made for the MB inspired ring and let me wear it around and see how I like it. She said she likes the basket head of the GJ ring, but she will also have to keep the shank at around 2.2 if I want the three sided. She loves the MB style the best, she's all for a "go big or go home" haha

One thing I do love about the MB, is how you cannot see the culet of the diamond on the undergallery. I am so nit picky on certain things, and I really don't like airlines, but those double sided prongs on the MB concern me with being too bulky.

I am so thankful this forum exists to help with these "problems" sometimes I feel like I drive my own self insane. :errrr: :loopy:
Click to expand...

Darn and I thought that would be such a score too! Ok well I actually really like the 2nd ring. it appeals a bit more to me which is surprizing as usually I go for very classic styles. Oh take pictures fo the wax and post as I'm extremely curious!
 
My vote is for the first (GJ) only because the prongs on MB seem more severe, and it looks like you want a softer, more delicate looking setting.
 
The left one looks less safe to me.
Its delicate beauty ain't worth nuttin if the diamond gets lost.

Look where the head attaches to the ring ... the size of the attachment area is more of a point.
The right one attaches over a wider area, which is stronger.
(This is assuming everything else is the same, the metal alloy properties, metal thickness, and quality of material and workmanship.)

If you subject both to increasingly larger blows the left head would bend over, or pop off, first.
Since an engagement ring may be worn every day for a lifetime I would not consider the design on the left unless I was a queen who just sat on a throne ordering servants around.

screen_shot_2013-04-04_at_12.png
 
Kenny--haha!!! I WISH I was a Queen! Haha! Or maybe just a Princess, I could settle with Princess too. Haha, but yes I do agree on your note. Maybe I could have the jeweler do a different mountain instead of that peg head/basket


And beacher, noted on the prongs. I will bring this up with the jeweler. I think you're right to point that out to me. I think that's where my biggest concern/bulk comes from. I am going to see a wax of it tomorrow so I will take photos and comment on that.
 
what about a cathedral setting? Mayhaps this is safer?

This is the Michael B Paris ring.
 
The Michael B that was posted on the forum previously looks gorgeous. I'm surprised that I like that one better than the GJ because in the pictures the MB looks bulky. But on an actual person (as in the pics you added) it looks lovely.
 
I like the GJ best because it's so delicate and elegant. I take Kenny's point about the small attachment area though.
 
Beacher-- I did see the Paris setting. It didn't "sing" to me the way the Princess setting did (and that was before I saw the price tags haha, it might have sung to me had I seen them) but thank you for the recommendation. I did see the pictures from Frankie when she had her's set in that setting--stunning

Nubuenavent-- incredible isn't it? You should see it in person, so thin and delicate. (I am going to see if my jeweler can maybe rework the pave to make the shank either a 2 or heck, 2.1 even to appease the "horror" of a 2.2 mm :loopy: )

Smith1942--agree, can't wait to see what my jeweler says tomorrow
 
I would agree with Kenny and really do not like the way that head is just sitting on top of that first setting. It just isn't as good a design to me. Are you wanting to wear the ring alone? Because it is not advised to wear a wedding band with 3 sided pave.
 
diamondseeker2006|1365136460|3420674 said:
I would agree with Kenny and really do not like the way that head is just sitting on top of that first setting. It just isn't as good a design to me. Are you wanting to wear the ring alone? Because it is not advised to wear a wedding band with 3 sided pave.
Click to expand...

Me three. And I'm also not crazy about the combination of a stone that size on such a thin shank - but I'm probably the only one here with that concern! :wink2:
 
Oh my wow, that is stunning!!!! VC really can do no wrong. :love: I just sent this link to the jeweler and noted on the pave.I think that's what is bothering me, the pave she has is a shared prong and a curved/round shank, I think I prefer the flatter style of the U cut on a three sided band that is less rounded and more three sided/square
 
beacherbeacher|1365106807|3420323 said:
what about a cathedral setting? Mayhaps this is safer?

This is the Michael B Paris ring.
Click to expand...

Ooh, I vote for this one, if you'd consider it!
 
Just wanted to update this---had the setting made, a hybrid between the two, and come to find out it was not my style after all. The diamond practically shrunk in front of my eyes the first week I wore it, (and budget does not allow an upgrade to a 3 carat, at least not for quite a few years/anniversaries!!) and the setting was too high, I kept hitting it on things, needless to say, the jeweler offered us a refund and melted the gold down and took back the diamonds. Thank goodness because it was a little expensive for me to not be 100 percent happy with it.

SO going back the VC Halo it is, fingers crossed all works out! I think I will be much happier with a lower setting, a halo to help prevent DSS! Thanks to all for your input!
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top