Vatche Felicity setting, is 1.3mm at the top too thin?

[silencer]

I initially posted this question in "show me the bling" forum and as suggested by a peer PSer I'm posting it here.

I'm looking at a Vatche design setting, called the "Felicity": http://www.whiteflash.com/engagemen...-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-1614.htm. It's 1.9mm at the bottom and 1.3mm at the top, and has kind of a knife edge.

There's another setting that's almost identical to it, called "Serenity Collection", but is about 2.5mm at the bottom and gets a bit thinner at the top (1.8mm): http://www.dvatche.com/index.php?page=collection&catID=2,19&id=158.

I'm struggling between these two settings. I'm leaning toward the Felicity but it has only 1.3mm at the top. Would it be too thin? What do you all think? Thanks.

By the way, the centre stone is about 1 carat, and the finger size is about 5.

 

[maccers]

Wow, they are almost identical. Looks like the serenity setting might sit just a tad lower than the felicity but I could be wrong because I'm just basing it on the pictures.

1.3mm is awfully thin, though we're talking about a tapered band and not the entire shank. There are some ppl on PS that wouldn't get a band under 2mm, and I'm one of them. While I have a desk job, I'm very clutzy and smash and knock my hands on things all the time. Plus, I'd want to wear my ring everyday, so, for security, I'd go with the slightly wider shank.

Is your SO going to wear it everyday? Does she have a job that she uses her hands a lot or is she clutzy like me?

 

[liaerfbv]

First of all, I love both settings!! I know they are almost identical, but they are beautiful. I can't speak as to the construction of the settings or if 1.3 is too thin to be safe, but for a size 5, I'd probably like the thinner band on the hand.

 

[silencer]

Wow, they are almost identical. Looks like the serenity setting might sit just a tad lower than the felicity but I could be wrong because I'm just basing it on the pictures.

1.3mm is awfully thin, though we're talking about a tapered band and not the entire shank. There are some ppl on PS that wouldn't get a band under 2mm, and I'm one of them. While I have a desk job, I'm very clutzy and smash and knock my hands on things all the time. Plus, I'd want to wear my ring everyday, so, for security, I'd go with the slightly wider shank.

Is your SO going to wear it everyday? Does she have a job that she uses her hands a lot or is she clutzy like me?

She will probably wear it a lot, and she has a very "desk" desk job, typing in front of a computer all day job.

 

[luckyerialc]

I vote for the second setting! They look almost identical and I think the first looks a bit too thin. 1.8 is still incredibly thin and I think it will have a nice balance. I would only recommend the first setting for a carat <.75 carats.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The 1.3 part is the part at the very top that connects to the basket. Vatche isn't going to make a ring with poor durability. If there was a choice in between these two sizes, that I what I'd choose. But since there isn't, I might lean toward the smaller one for a 1 ct. diamond.

 

[Laila619]

I'd get the wider one, just because it's the safer bet IMO. Not everyone likes a dainty setting. On my size 6 fingers, they look terrible. And for durability sake, I'd want the wider one too. Also, with a 1.3 mm taper at the top, it's going to be hard to find a wedding band to match that won't completely overpower the setting.

 

[NonieMarie]

I'd get the wider one, just because it's the safer bet IMO. Not everyone likes a dainty setting. On my size 6 fingers, they look terrible. And for durability sake, I'd want the wider one too. Also, with a 1.3 mm taper at the top, it's going to be hard to find a wedding band to match that won't completely overpower the setting.

I would worry that such a thin band would bend and end up as an oval.