Which has more hand presence...3 stone or halo?

[Laila619]

Both but for difference reasons (IMO). Halos give that round finger coverage, the bigger center stone look. Three stones have the finger coverage spread, from finger side to finger side. Having had both, people definitely noticed the halo more than the three stone, however halos are so common now, that I think back when I had one, it was new and different.

Do you still have your 1.80 haloed? Would you want two halo rings?

Feb! Good to see you. Nope, I sold that diamond for a nice little profit that went into the bling fund! I was able to use the crazy diamond price increases to my advantage.

Oh, wow! That's awesome! So just so I'm up to speed, you only have your .98 now?

Yes, exactly. Well, plus the two new side stones I purchased this spring. DH thinks I should just stick with the three stone because otherwise, the side stones would go to waste. I never wear studs so can't make them into earrings. I'll tell you, I don't regret selling the 1.8 carat at all. It freed up a lot of money, and I hardly ever wore it anyway. What's going on in your neck of the bling woods? Do you still have your round from Jared?

 

[yssie]

Well, we're ignoring quality and method of manufacture, and in this sort of discussion I don't think you can really do that... The differences between poor, mediocre, nice, and exquisite halo settings can be huge, and method of manufacture does play a (IMO visible and significant) part. A plain threestone is a much more forgiving setting - the gains of spending the sort of money an exquisite halo would cost are negligible.

I obviously prefer the three-stone, and I have no issue with blobby

 

[decodelighted]

My random thoughts on the comparison are:

Three-stones:
old money, preppy, conservative, understated, can be stodgy/butch

Halos:
trendy, exuberant, romantic, showy, can-be-clustery/cocktaily

 

[Haven]

My random thoughts on the comparison are:

Three-stones:
old money, preppy, conservative, understated, can be stodgy/butch

Halos:
trendy, exuberant, romantic, showy, can-be-clustery/cocktaily

AHAHAHAHAHA! This has me laughing out loud, Deco.
I've never thought of a diamond ring as butch before; this gives the voices in my head an entirely new flavor!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Haha! I agree with most of your assessment, Deco, and I see why I fall into the 3 stone camp (in 2 or 3 ways, not all 5!).

I'm just at the point I don't want anything that may go out of style. So if I did a halo, it would be like a Legacy or something very classic or a deco design as opposed to the cluster look.

 

[m-2-b]

I have both and my vote is for 3 stone.

 

[Gypsy]

I agree with Deco's assessment too (except for the butch thing as I have no context for that). That's why I really wanted a three stone when it came down to settings. But my asscher in a three stone was just underwelming and so I went for the halo.

Laila, yes, the halo stones are small on the Tacori. My halo has 1/2 pointers too though. It's a matter of what you like to see in your halo. I like a little frame around my center for Oomph. But I am conservative so I didn't want anything TOO showy so I went with the most understated halo I could get. And if you see my ring in person, it is understated.

But if you like that Tacori, you can do something custom along the same lines and increase the point size in the halo and the halo proportions. Again though... it's gonna cost. 5k is where my mind is at.

 

[TravelingGal]

I just want to report in that I did a Costco run today because while wearing my 3 stone ring, I felt I had the extra butchness required to lift and load large bulk items.

 

[february2003bride]

Both but for difference reasons (IMO). Halos give that round finger coverage, the bigger center stone look. Three stones have the finger coverage spread, from finger side to finger side. Having had both, people definitely noticed the halo more than the three stone, however halos are so common now, that I think back when I had one, it was new and different.

Do you still have your 1.80 haloed? Would you want two halo rings?

Feb! Good to see you. Nope, I sold that diamond for a nice little profit that went into the bling fund! I was able to use the crazy diamond price increases to my advantage.

Oh, wow! That's awesome! So just so I'm up to speed, you only have your .98 now?

Yes, exactly. Well, plus the two new side stones I purchased this spring. DH thinks I should just stick with the three stone because otherwise, the side stones would go to waste. I never wear studs so can't make them into earrings. I'll tell you, I don't regret selling the 1.8 carat at all. It freed up a lot of money, and I hardly ever wore it anyway. What's going on in your neck of the bling woods? Do you still have your round from Jared?

Gotcha. How about selling the side stones? Or if you want to keep it as a three stone, but get a different setting?

Not much is new with me! I did my own reset back in April. I went from a pave setting to a plain solitaire mount. It's a beautiful mount but it's not my forever setting. I know I'm unhappy with the size of my .80 round, so the plan for now is no more resets and in a couple of years, get the diamond shape/size I'm 100% happy with and then the setting I want to go with that diamond and then be done with it. If in a couple of years it doesn't look like the upgrade will happen (I do have a 9th grader so college isn't too far off! DH knows I may get "spending" cold feet with tuition payments on the horizon) then I'll look into resetting the .80, most likely into a halo IF I still love them as much as I do now. Curse of being a PSer! We are aware of all the options out there!

 

[Laila619]

I have both and my vote is for 3 stone.

Interesting, mom2boys, any reasons why? Do you get more compliments on your 3 stone?

 

[Laila619]

Well, we're ignoring quality and method of manufacture, and in this sort of discussion I don't think you can really do that... The differences between poor, mediocre, nice, and exquisite halo settings can be huge, and method of manufacture does play a (IMO visible and significant) part. A plain threestone is a much more forgiving setting - the gains of spending the sort of money an exquisite halo would cost are negligible.

I obviously prefer the three-stone, and I have no issue with blobby

Hehe, Yssie!

 

[Laila619]

My random thoughts on the comparison are:

Three-stones:
old money, preppy, conservative, understated, can be stodgy/butch

Halos:
trendy, exuberant, romantic, showy, can-be-clustery/cocktaily

Deco, this post is hilarious! I'm butch, woo hoo.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Well, we're ignoring quality and method of manufacture, and in this sort of discussion I don't think you can really do that... The differences between poor, mediocre, nice, and exquisite halo settings can be huge, and method of manufacture does play a (IMO visible and significant) part. A plain threestone is a much more forgiving setting - the gains of spending the sort of money an exquisite halo would cost are negligible.

I obviously prefer the three-stone, and I have no issue with blobby

Hehe, Yssie!

But Yssie has much smaller side stones than her center, which certainly avoids a blobby look in my opinion and experience!

 

[Laila619]

Well, we're ignoring quality and method of manufacture, and in this sort of discussion I don't think you can really do that... The differences between poor, mediocre, nice, and exquisite halo settings can be huge, and method of manufacture does play a (IMO visible and significant) part. A plain threestone is a much more forgiving setting - the gains of spending the sort of money an exquisite halo would cost are negligible.

I obviously prefer the three-stone, and I have no issue with blobby

Hehe, Yssie!

But Yssie has much smaller side stones than her center, which certainly avoids a blobby look in my opinion and experience!

Definitely true! But Yssie has a honker center, so she can have smaller sides in relation to her center. Too much smaller in mine and we're getting into melee territory.

 

[yssie]

Baguettes or bullets? Lots of finger coverage but subtle unblobby bling that keeps all the attention on the center..? The current sides could go in dangly earrings, or a bracelet, or a necklace...

 

[Dreamer_D]

Well what is the goal look you want? What you have is going to have the most sparkle and eye-catchingness in terms of the combo of diamonds. I do think you can go a lot smaller and create a very different look BUT still get lots of coverage. Think about it: .25ct sides are 4mm and the ones you have are about 5.2mm, right? That is only about 3mm in coverage lost, or about 15% in horizontal spread. I don't thin that is very much when you are talking about a ring like that but it would be a totally different look.

 

[distracts]

Three-stone all the way! They catch my eye way more than halos do.

If you want it to look like less of a band and more like a center with two sides, you should either get a bigger center/smaller sides or do a non-round shape for the sides. And I agree on having the sides set lower than the center and tilted away from it (with all of their faces following the contour of your hand).

 

[m-2-b]

Generally, my tastes tend to run toward simple, classic lines in jewelry. So I like the clean lines of a 3 stone which also gives me the horizontal coverage I'm looking for at the same time. My 3 stone ring is definitely blingier!

Halo's have to be proportionate so as to make sure there's not the cluster effect going on. I also find that halo's tend to get in the way w/ my work so I usually wear it for special occasions only.

Hope this helps!

 

[Enerchi]

Not sure if this has been touched on yet or not, but do your rings spin? I have haloed coloured stone rings and they spin more so than my 3 stone did. My 3 stayed in place (unless it was mid January and the temp was -20C which is pretty much the average here...) but the halo's are very busy rings - top/bottom/sides - they are everywhere! Maybe it's just me, but thought I'd throw that in...

Even when I stalk rings on eBay or vendor websites, I'm always drawn to a 3 stone more than the halo's --- I guess somewhere in us, we just like what we like!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Of course I'm going to vote three stone as that's what I have but I prefer it because it is a cleaner look to my eye. There are some beautiful halo rings floating around here on PS but for me, for everyday, a three stone wins hands down. You do get the finger coverage and lots of bling.

I'm also in the camp that prefers smaller sidestones so it doesn't look so blobish! Ha! I like the stones more evenly matched in size if they are going straight across rather than with staggered heights. That look lends itself to a RHR ring though rather than an ering but again, that's just personal preference. For an ering, I prefer the sidestones to be more accent with the centerstone shining. Dreamer is right about her assessment of sidestone sizes though - you'd loose very little but it would make your one carat center more the focus of the ring. Just my .02 for what it's worth!

Are you still thinking of the truth setting? I think that is so pretty and classy!!

 

[PintoBean]

Hi Laila,

My mom has that particular halo - the BGD Kristen with a 1.7+ ct center. The melee in the halo are 2.5 pointers. Like others have mentioned, the bigger pointers end up giving more of a blended blingy effect, to the extent that, in comparison to my mom's 2.1 ct in a truth head with a split shank, she actually prefers to wear the Kristen halo with the smaller center because it appears "bigger" to her eyes. By bigger, mom means, one BIG blendy blingy center.

If you go with this setting, it WILL be gorgeous, and... BLINDING!