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

[swl]

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-engagement-ring-setting_8019?metal_filter=white&setting_filter=sidestone&set_shape=

or

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-engagement-ring-setting_8019?metal_filter=white&setting_filter=sidestone&set_shape=

one has .3 side stones and one has .1 but raised up in a cathedral setting, both have 2.1 mm width, assuming for a 1 carat RB stone

 

[Ellen]

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]

hi Ellen! you are so quick with responses! i am just curious to know which setting do you think is better?

 

[Ellen]

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....

 

[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

 

[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".

 

[decodelighted]

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]

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.

 

[E B]

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]

Here''s a comparison ... all w/ 1 carat round stones. Which looks bigger to you?

 

[vespergirl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The middle one makes it look biggest to me!

 

[lucyandroger]

I think someone just posted the ring that Deco suggested in SMTR recently. I'm going to go try to dig it up!


ETA - Here it is with a .78 carat stone. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-finally-did-it.110603/

It's just lovely!!!

 

[swl]

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"...