Vote, Please: Best setting for my Cushion?

[reena]

Hi all,

I''m pretty much driving myself looney tunes trying to decide on a setting for "my" 2 carat cushion cut diamond. (I say "my" in quotes because I don''t techinically have THE stone yet, but I''m close, and in my opinion if the stone visits you in dreams plus you almost lose your job on account of doodling sketches of it in various hypothetical settings, not to mention stealing lots of office supplies in the form of printing out GIA certs on your office computer all day long, then I think that entitles you to call it MY, at least so long you''re using quotes.)

In any event, I need to go see my (no quotes) setting guy tomorrow to get a rough price estimate, so I need to have some idea what I want, plus I don''t want him to think I''m completely nuts-o (which, plainly, I am). So. Story is I''m obsessed with micropave bezel settings, so that part''s easy--the only question is whether to go with a more "antique" looking version of that setting (with a milgrain--is that the right term?--border surrounding the pave, for ex.) or a more "modern" looking version with no border or anything else surrounding the pave, so that setting-wise you pretty much see nothing but the pave stones. (as jlo would put it: bling, bling.)

I''m torn because, while I like the antique look, I don''t want to take too much away from the stone (I know, bezels tend to do this, but I''m trying to minimize that), and I also want something super-delicate, and not chunky.
I realize this is an entirely subjective opinion-based inquiry, but, that being said: Anyone have an opinion on what might look better?

I have posted my favorite example of a more antique-looking version below (but obv, my stone is not an oval.) Also, please do ignore the shot from the side--no me gusta. I would do something different. (Can''t you just tell already that my (" ") setting guy is going to love me?) Modern version pics to follow (if i can get them to post the first time instead of the twenty-first time, which is how many tries it took me this time around.)

Thanks! REENA

 

[reena]

modern #1 (sans the menagerie of colored bands)

 

[reena]

Modern #2, courtesy of my man leon, whom i am seriously considering accosting on the street and forcing to marry me. Oh, and sans emerald.

 

[MrsFrk]

Oh man, anything Leon Mege makes my heart go pitter patter! I like how in the 3rd setting your stone would be front and center.

 

[researcher]

Leon, Leon, he's your man! If he can't do it no one can! Sorry, it's a bit late and I'm tired. Anyhow, I LOVE the third setting if you didn't guess!!!

 

[valeria101]

here's a couple of the same flavour at

Diamonds by Lauren plus their more or les light framed rings

and at Walter Arnstein quite few large stones surrounded by micro pave.

On catalog, something like this is made by Precisionset and Richard Landi, as far as I remember. From the top these settings are nearly alike - with the shape of the diamond dictating the shape of the bezel, of course, and there is no way to see the undercarriage in the pictures!

 

[valeria101]

But... these ready made settings will not match the shape of your diamond, since they are not true bezels ( = the girdle of the diamond stays on top of the metal - it is not wraped in it).

The #1 in your selection looks awesome!

 

[alexah]

In the minority but I luv the look of modern #1 best

 

[Diamondsbybree]

Of course there is my favorite... carlblackburn

 

[fire&ice]

I like the modern one. Very clean lines

 

[lsmathis1]

My .02 - I looooooooooooove #1.

 

[finerthings]

I vote the modern #1, as I am not a fan of miligrain antique style.

 

[reena]

oh, darn, this is so hard, i like them all.

i might be leaning toward the modern (1 and 2 are pretty similar; i think that mine would end up looking more like one only because that's the actual shape of my stone). this is only because im a little afraid that the antique would turn out thicker than id like (on account of the milgrain border) and overpower the stone. (but wait ten minutes and ill change my mind again.) i just emailed our friend leon for a firmer estimate on the modern (fingers crossed) so we'll see.

i REALLY appreciate all of your input--keep it comin'! plus, if i show my BF one more setting i think he's going to institutionalize me!

 

[sparkler29]

I like modern #1 the best. But I can see why you're having trouble deciding!

 

[Gale]

I like modern #1 the best.

 

[Leila]

Reena,
I too looooove milgraining but the milgraining will fade over time and will require upkeep. After a while, the bead set stones looks almost channel set. If this bothers you, maybe prong-set melee stones will be better.

 

[Jennifer5973]

reena, I really lOVE modern #1 (sans the colored bands!)

 

[quaeritur]

Modern #1, hands down. LOVE it.

 

[windowshopper]

the richard landi one at the bottom gets my vote-----simple yet antique--i like the details on the sides as well

 

[reena]

thanks again guys, this is so great. i just love hearing everyone's opinions.

leila--im was so glad to hear from you because i just loooove your ring, and if i did the antique look i would want something similar to what you have (plus a bezel). i never thought about wear and tear changing the look of the setting--good point. has this happened to yours? (im sure it's still just as gorgeous regardless.)

out of curiosity, to those of you who voted for modern 1 vs. modern 2, what made you like one over the other? they look pretty near identical to me aside from the shape of the stone. i'd be interested to hear!

 

[Jennifer5973]

Maybe the emerald threw me off...But #1 just looked so icy and clean...the accent stones were small and the cushion really showed as the star. #2 also looked like it had more of an "encrusted" look, possibly with stones allover the band/setting, not just around the stone/on the front... I liked the cleaner lines of the first one.

 

[moremoremore]

I like modern #1!

 

[sevens one]

I like Modern #1. Isn't that like Ashley Judd's??? I have no life.

 

[quaeritur]

----------------
On 8/17/2004 1:18:27 PM reena wrote:

thanks again guys, this is so great. i just love hearing everyone's opinions.

...

out of curiosity, to those of you who voted for modern 1 vs. modern 2, what made you like one over the other? they look pretty near identical to me aside from the shape of the stone. i'd be interested to hear!----------------

I like modern #1 better for a cushion diamond. I love the Leon Mege for the emerald, the way it is in that picture. For some reason, with all diamonds, I'd want the micropave/pave to all be the same size, in the bezel and around the shank -I think that's what really makes the center stand out. With the emerald, the color makes it stand out and the different sized bezel/shank stones add interest. But I think they'd compete in an all-white diamond ring. Also, I like not seeing the prongs in mod#1. That's picking nits, but I think those were the main factors that made me like it best. I simply love the teeny micropave all over -it just frames the center stone perfectly, without competing.

 

[reena]

okay, i see, that all makes good sense. thanks.

i just went and looked at some settings of both styles (yes, im going to get fired soon for sure), and i think i'm convinced that going with something in the more modern vein will be the best way to get a delicate setting that really showcases the stone.

the jeweler i spoke to suggested that the modern look--wherein the pave is a little more "rounded" because it wraps around without a border, as opposed to the bordered antique look which is a little "flatter"--better complements the contours of a cushion cut. (for whatever that's worth.)

my only issue now is, do i go with the micropave meistro himself--mr. mege--or do i trust someone else to do it for me (probably for a lot less money)? is there anything i need to be concerned with about micropave other than the way it looks to my eye? i saw some really pretty pieces today--but how do i know if it's quality workmanship?

 

[moremoremore]

I would not have the pave go all the way around the shank for re-sizing. For all the $, it's not a good idea b/c your finger size will change

 

[reena]

ok so you mean, don't do it eternity style? i had heard that eternity bands are impossible to resize. thats definitely something to think about!

so tell me this: does it do any good to leave just a tiny space with no pave at the bottom? or would that not help if the ring did indeed need to be resized? how much space do i need to leave?

i always figured it was more of the exception than the rule for peoples' ring sizes to change. no?

(ps do you like my new little buddy up there to the left?)

 

[moremoremore]

He is SO cute!! Just a happy happy little fella!

I def think that as we age...finger sizes change...also, are you gonna have kids? Fingers swell...you may or may not return to your weight now!

I don't know about how much should be open though. If it's just a little space in the back, it might not make a diff and it still won't be able to be resized...I'd check with a jeweler....If you only have the pave in the front, it will be no prob I imagine. I also am a hand lotion freak, so pave in the back for me is no good. Also, I'd consider trying one on to make sure the pave b/w your fingers doesn't bother you...

 

[moremoremore]

p.s. I had to have my plat band sawed off b/c I got nice and plump since getting married...and don't think it can't happen to YOU...LOL

 

[reena]

LOL! ive always been an ectomorph so of course i think im immune!!

but of course i am not, nobody is. (and yes, lots of babies for me.) i definitely dont want to be getting any pave sawed off after the wedding, so im going to be sure to ask the jeweler what he suggests.