Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

which setting do you think will make a 1 carat look bigger?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,426
I think they're all the same setting....But at 2.1 mm in width, it will make the diamond pop nicely.

ETA I see you changed the links, but it's still the same setting.
 

swl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
183
hi Ellen! you are so quick with responses! i am just curious to know which setting do you think is better?
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,426
Date: 3/24/2009 5:03:39 PM
Author: swl
hi Ellen! you are so quick with responses! i am just curious to know which setting do you think is better?
Hi swl,

Admittedly I''m confused. I pulled up both links, and they are of the same setting, with 5 sidestones each....
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,426
Date: 3/24/2009 5:11:49 PM
Author: swl
wait, really? my fault, hold on...

http://pics.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM15400600_RD_100_200zoom.jpg

each stone is .01

and


http://pics.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500700_RD_100_200zoom.jpg

each stone is .03

both rings have the width of 2.1mm
Ok, now we''re there!

I personally like the highlighted setting more myself, though, the higher a stone sits, the bigger it will "appear". So the other could likely achieve a slightly bigger "look".
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
Hmmm... hard to say. I wish there was a cathedral option with .01 stones that were shared prong & not bead set. They''ll probably look about the same

#1 has extra metal & is lower set - so while the stone SHOULD look bigger against the backdrop of delicate stones, the previously mentioned factors will distract.

#2 offers the option of having the stone set higher -- but it won''t LOOK much higher in comparison to the size of the bigger side stones.

Aw man -- you have to ask the hard questions, huh? Back to the drawing board?
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
This is your winner, my friend ... its $1100 but its going to make that diamond SING ... and I bet she adores the platinum. It's 1.8mm wide, so its thinner & going to make the diamond POP more -- plus the subtle sparkle of the micro pave stones are going to create an optical illusion that is UNBEATABLE.

platinummicropavebluenile.jpg
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
Date: 3/24/2009 5:38:29 PM
Author: decodelighted
This is your winner, my friend ... its $1100 but its going to make that diamond SING ... and I bet she adores the platinum. It''s 1.8mm wide, so its thinner & going to make the diamond POP more -- plus the subtle sparkle of the micro pave stones are going to create an optical illusion that is UNBEATABLE.
This one, absolutely!
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
Here''s a comparison ... all w/ 1 carat round stones. Which looks bigger to you?

threewaybluenilechart.jpg
 

vespergirl

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
5,497
Date: 3/24/2009 5:38:29 PM
Author: decodelighted
This is your winner, my friend ... its $1100 but its going to make that diamond SING ... and I bet she adores the platinum. It''s 1.8mm wide, so its thinner & going to make the diamond POP more -- plus the subtle sparkle of the micro pave stones are going to create an optical illusion that is UNBEATABLE.
I agree - I really LOVE this setting. Someone just got this one (the electrical engineer who made the funny jewelry box) and it''s gorgeous.
 

D&T

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
12,505
Date: 3/24/2009 5:20:21 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 3/24/2009 5:11:49 PM
Author: swl
wait, really? my fault, hold on...

http://pics.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM15400600_RD_100_200zoom.jpg

each stone is .01

and


http://pics.bluenile.com/assets/product_images/rings/DM03500700_RD_100_200zoom.jpg

each stone is .03

both rings have the width of 2.1mm
Ok, now we''re there!

I personally like the highlighted setting more myself, though, the higher a stone sits, the bigger it will ''appear''. So the other could likely achieve a slightly bigger ''look''.
Ditto on ellen''s highlighted post, but I also like the one Deco also posted as well... guess i''m not much help there :)
 

D&T

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
12,505
Date: 3/24/2009 5:44:46 PM
Author: decodelighted
Here''s a comparison ... all w/ 1 carat round stones. Which looks bigger to you?
ok,,,< I since Have voted for Deco''s ring choice it''s a a beauty...
 

decodelighted

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
11,534
Its only a couple hundred dollars more ... PLUS its PLATINUM. I really think that''s the best choice at Blue Nile. Big look -- killer value -- classic beauty.

The picture tells all
 

Ellen

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
24,426
I like the one deco found best for top down view, but gotta admit, from the profile, not loving the head....but it''s all personal preference.
 

AprilBaby

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
10,449
The middle one makes it look biggest to me!
 

swl

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
183
oh the sweet heart pave ring is indeed really cute! I think the pave catheral looks more "put together" and the other one with .03 stones looks a little "different"...
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top