Which Cushion Halo design? Help me choose!

[Yee Haw!]

Hey folks,

I'm having a cushion micropave halo ring made with a 2+ carat stone. Here are the CAD images for the two designs I'm considering. Which of these two designs do you prefer? Design #1 has an open gallery, while Design #2 has struts under the basket. I've paired up the angles of the pics to make it easy to compare the two options.

My soon-to-be-fiance has said she wants a cushion cut stone in a micropave halo setting. She'd like the band to be as delicate as possible, a wedding band to sit flush against the engagement ring, and the stone set as low and close to the finger as possible. The slight split shank is something I've added just to make the ring a little different than what would otherwise be a straight HW copy.

So, which do you like better?

(CAD #1, pic 1)

 

[Yee Haw!]

CAD design #2, pic 1

 

[Yee Haw!]

CAD design #1, pic 2

 

[Yee Haw!]

CAD design #2, pic 2

 

[Yee Haw!]

CAD design #1, pic 3

 

[Yee Haw!]

CAD design #2, pic 3

 

[sunnyd]

I''d go with #1 if she wants the WB to sit flush. I''d be worried about it rubbing against the stones on the struts and scratching. Gorgeous rings!

 

[Yee Haw!]

Thanks! For what it''s worth, the jewelry designer says that a WB will fit flush with either option.

Other thoughts?

 

[jill_s]

My vote is for #2. There''s something about the basket in #2 that makes it seem more polished and finished than the open basket in #1.

 

[beechezz]

I like the first one also. I like how you can see the diamond underneath. They are both beautiful so either one will be an awesome choice!

 

[Bella_mezzo]

they are both beautiful. I don''t quite see how the w-band will sit flush with the secone one, but if it will I prefer that one.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like number 1

 

[pixie123]

They are both beautiful! No. 1 is more modern and streamlined with clean lines, while No. 2 has a more vintage appearance due to the detailed pave underneath the diamond. It''s really depends on which vibe she prefers...

 

[Collee]

Both are beautiful but I prefer #2.

 

[bleeblue]

I vote for #1! I think #2 is too busy (a bit overkill considering all the dimaonds on the split shank and halo) and #1 will also let more light in through the side of the ring

 

[Bleed Burnt Orange]

I like #1.

 

[packrat]

I''m on the #1 bandwagon as well. I like it open underneath.

 

[mrssalvo]

I vote for #1..

 

[lknvrb4]

My vote is for #1 also.

 

[Hest88]

#1. I like the cleaner, sleeker look.

 

[LGK]

#2. I like details only visible from the side.

 

[Kaleigh]

#1 for me.

 

[Beaglemom]

#1 I like the sleek, modern look of it. Either one will be beautiful.

 

[gemgirl]

Both are really pretty but I''d choose the second one. I like the little extra something.

 

[cellentani]

Date: 1/21/2010 7:14:02 PM
Author: gemgirl
Both are really pretty but I''d choose the second one. I like the little extra something.

Ditto gemgirl - I like a little something extra too, and the profile view is very important to me. After all, that''s the view that I see much of the time. However, I do like how it will be easier to clean the diamond in #1.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Both rings are beautiful. . .something about having a visable culet, such as in #1 would make me nervous. . .the extra diamonds in #2 may be a bit busy however the culet is protected. Does she like the split shank style?

 

[LaurenThePartier]

I''m a big fan of #1 - it''s a cleaner, less busy design. Plus, seeing the culet (and being able to easily clean it) are both very attractive elements of that design.

 

[Luckyeshe]

I vote for ring 1 as well. Very streamline and fluid. But both look great!

 

[elle_chris]

Number 1.

 

[stepcutgirl]

I like them both but number one calls to me a little more.