Visible size difference - upgrading side stones?

[ppuff211]

Hello wise PS-ers,

A while back I changed my e-ring from a 1.26ct solitaire to a BGD three-stone with .40ct side stones in the Truth x3 setting. For reference here was my post with CADs of the ring: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cads-are-in-opinions.209956/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cads-are-in-opinions.209956/..[/URL].

Although I adore the setting (the lines are beautiful and BGD's workmanship was stunning), the ring doesn't provide as much finger as I coverage as I would like. I am thinking about (A) upgrading my side stones to .60ct each so that my ring has a 1:2:1 ratio, and (B) changing my setting to the BGD trellis so the stones are set on more of a level plane, and the side stones arent as tucked in/below the center stone.

Do you think the increase in side stones from .40ct to .60ct will make a visible difference to justify spending money on new stones/resetting?

Thanks so much! (Side note--although I would love to upgrade my center stone, I'm not in a place where I can do that).

 

[ppuff211]

Here are photos of my ring now -- im hoping my new ring will have less metal showing on the sides (band). Excuse the nails.. I'm home with a newborn and manicures have just not been a reality for several weeks

 

[chrono]

Changing the size of the side stones also changes the 3 stone ring proportions. Whereas a large stone and 2 small sidestones makes the center stone pop and appear to look larger, a 3 stone where the ratio is less, is more overall bling with less focus on the center stone. It is a different look.

 

[JDDN]

Are you wanting more lateral (side to side) finger coverage only? I'm agreeing with Chrono in that changing to 0.60 will be more of a wall of bling, whereas, your current proportions allow the center stone to pop. I think it depends on what "look" you're after. I think going to 0.60 will provide more side to side coverage, but if your heart is really wishing for a larger center stone, I'd save for a while and upgrade at a later time. Is your center stone from BGD?

 

[lambskin]

I totally agree with the above posts. Either you upgrade the middle and get the bigger rock for more WOW and finger coverage or you change the whole ratio and make the side stones bigger which will take away from the center stone. You will have to pay for 2 larger stones plus a new setting. I guess the least costly option is go for a five stone ring and have either smaller rounds or baguettes next to the current side stones. That would give you the diamond coverage on the finger for the cost of two smaller stones and a new setting But I am a traditionalist and I like and engagment ring to look like an engagement ring and not a RHR or eternity band. I think you ring is pretty now.

 

[kenny]

As mentioned, it's a different look.

I think you have to decide whether you want the feel of a center diamond or not.
If so larger side diamonds will take away from that look, so I'd leave your beautiful ring alone.

IMO larger side stones will make it look confused, like it's not sure if it's a central-diamond style or a Wall-O-Bling style, which is usually achieved with 5 diamonds of the same size or graduated and symmetrical with the center being the largest.

 

[ppuff211]

Thanks all. I do like my center stone, which is not from BGD. My preference is not to change the center stone (for sentimental reasons) since it is the one my husband proposed with. I already have a 5 stone RHR with .3ct stones, which I love

My thought process re: upping the side stones to a 1:2:1 ratio is to have more bling without changing the center stone, and I do like the look of Tiffany 3-stones which have the same 1:2:1 ratio. I do agree, though, that the cost of upgrading the side stones + new setting can be quite pricey (especially considering this would be my second reset). Hmm... Will keep thinking about this. I will say the ring seems to have more finger coverage in the attached photos vs in real life (maybe because my fingers are pressed together in the photos?)

 

[HappyNewLife]

Larger side stones will make your center stone appear smaller, so I personally wouldn't do that. I'd contact BGD about perhaps doing a re-do on the setting like what you mentioned about angling the stones. Or perhaps you would be happier with a 5-stone

 

[ppuff211]

Larger side stones will make your center stone appear smaller, so I personally wouldn't do that. I'd contact BGD about perhaps doing a re-do on the setting like what you mentioned about angling the stones. Or perhaps you would be happier with a 5-stone

This is s good idea -- thanks! I will look in to resetting my current stones in to the new setting.

And thanks everyone for your input. It sounds like general consensus is not to increase the size of my side stones.

 

[ADN]

Hi - beautiful ring by the way
Just thinking outside of the box a bit - if you want a bit more finger coverage, but still want the centre stone to not get overwhelmed, have you considered changing the shape of the side stones? Maybe a couple of pear shapes with the points running down the band? Would increase the surface area, and if you wanted slightly bigger pear shapes (without unbalancing the overall look) they are cheaper than rounds. And you could use your existing rounds to make a nice pair of stud earrings
Just an idea - good luck with whatever you decide

 

[MissGotRocks]

I don't think changing the size of the side stones is a good idea unless you are willing to change the size of the center stone as well. I don't think you would like the proportions as much.

Here is my three stone with a larger center and you can still see metal on either side of the ring. If it went finger to finger, it would probably be uncomfortable too. Your ring is very pretty - love the proportions of it now!