What does everyone think of invisible diamond pendants?
- Thread starter NYbella
- Start date
- Status
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
I'm not a fan of 'em usually ... Bleh-ing - vs - BLING! But I can understand why other folks like 'em - glimmery, big POW for less $$ etc.
ETA: I do like channel set square stones, that can look "invisibly set" ... that look like a long stream of diamonds. Have a cross pendent with princess stones set that way & dig it!
ETA: I do like channel set square stones, that can look "invisibly set" ... that look like a long stream of diamonds. Have a cross pendent with princess stones set that way & dig it!
FireGoddess
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2005
- Messages
- 12,145
I can''t see any picture.
Personally, it completely depends on the piece. I''ve seen some I love, some I don''t like.
Personally, it completely depends on the piece. I''ve seen some I love, some I don''t like.
asscherisme
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,950
I have a pendant with 4 .25 princess diamonds in it, 1ctw pirncess, and around it a bunch of round. Hard to describe but its beautful. Plaitnum and I love it.
Its not meant to look like a big diamond (I don''t think so or care) its pretty in its own right and I always get complements every time I wear it.
BUT I only like this type of setting if its done right and if its not meant to "fool" anyone. Also only for pendants becuase they take less wear and tear.
The pendant you posted looks pretty but it s hard to tell in a photo for sure.
I hate rings that are supposed to look like a big damond. I don''t think invisible setting works well for a ring.
Someone posted a photo of the ring that the winner of biggest loser gave to the girl on biggest loser and it looked really tacky. It was invisible set.
I don''t kinow how to copy it on this thread, anyone?
He won 1 million dollars, even if he only kept $600,000 after taxes, buy the girl a decent ring!! I don''t think spending 15 or 20K on a ring would have affected his life or budget after all he won!! And just think of what an AMAZING ring he could have gotten her for 15-20K. I personally think he cheaped out. I don''t think that men should be judged on what they spend, but in that case, I definately think he should have bought her a decent ring. And didn''t she win 50K to boot?
Its not meant to look like a big diamond (I don''t think so or care) its pretty in its own right and I always get complements every time I wear it.
BUT I only like this type of setting if its done right and if its not meant to "fool" anyone. Also only for pendants becuase they take less wear and tear.
The pendant you posted looks pretty but it s hard to tell in a photo for sure.
I hate rings that are supposed to look like a big damond. I don''t think invisible setting works well for a ring.
Someone posted a photo of the ring that the winner of biggest loser gave to the girl on biggest loser and it looked really tacky. It was invisible set.
I don''t kinow how to copy it on this thread, anyone?
He won 1 million dollars, even if he only kept $600,000 after taxes, buy the girl a decent ring!! I don''t think spending 15 or 20K on a ring would have affected his life or budget after all he won!! And just think of what an AMAZING ring he could have gotten her for 15-20K. I personally think he cheaped out. I don''t think that men should be judged on what they spend, but in that case, I definately think he should have bought her a decent ring. And didn''t she win 50K to boot?
sydneycasandra
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 325
...valued at $15k, what Canadian or something? If that man bought that ring for $15k US I wanna talk to him about a bridge I''m selling...
Date: 5/2/2006 10:50:21 AM
Author: Blenheim
Asscherisme, here''s the Biggest Loser ring:
Oh geez that really is ugly...I don''t like when they are supposed to give the image of a solitaire. It can look really nice in a pendant if it''s done right.
asscherisme
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,950
Thanks for posting the photo. I think that ring is so ugly. $15000 appraisal could easily mean he spend $6000 and the store gave him an inflated appraisal to make him feel good. But we know all that an inflated appraisal does is raise your premium!
Off track, as I said before, I think invisible settings can look nice in a pendant, and I even own a pendant that is invisible set.
But for rings, I say Nope, not a good thing.
Off track, as I said before, I think invisible settings can look nice in a pendant, and I even own a pendant that is invisible set.
But for rings, I say Nope, not a good thing.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 19,277
You said it NYbella! I don''t like being "deceived!" My DH and I checked into a hotel in Chicago in December and the gal who checked us in was wearing what first appeared to be about a 2 carat princess cut. Upon closer inspection (meaning I was trying to be inconspicuous about eye-balling her ring), it was actually 4 smaller princess stones, set invisibly. Grr! I felt like a fool for a second, lol!
My wedding band is actually two rows of invisible set princesses. My e-ring is a 1.5 RB solitaire, and the two together look very nice. I''m thinking of having my center stone re-set into a semi-mount with invisible set princesses on the sides one of these days, or I may just change the entire thing. LOL!
diamondfan
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Messages
- 11,016
I think when you set them in a square and then set it into a ring, it looks like it is trying to pass as a bigger stone. In a necklace, or a line bracelet or something, I do not mind them. I have earrings that are rubies invisibly set, shaped like a flower, with diamond centers. I think they look great. I also just guess it depends on the piece...
- Status
300x240.png)