Please help with setting for 2.0 -2.5ct center

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#31
CoralRhapsody said:
I trust your opinion on this stuff, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in and ask a question! :)

How is a happy compromise reached between having a dainty, thin engagement ring band that is also pave? From what I've read, it seems that anything slimmer than 2 mm is prone to structural issues, but at the same time, I LOVE how a slim band flatters a smaller stone.
Click to expand...

What is your finger ring size? How thin would you consider?

I have seen others set the stone 1.10ct and less on the 1.5mm pave and it makes the center stone looks larger; however, the ring could spin and flip flop. I don't think you should do less than 1.5mm.
 
#32
2mm is pretty narrow. You need at least that much width or the ring wont have enough structure or metal strength to stay intact or solid. It will bend very easily and lose melee otherwise. But on a stone that is 1.10, a 2mm would be ideal width.

Another thing to remember--if you go narrower than 2mm, you're using half point stones, which no matter how well cut they are, aren't big enough to really sparkle like maybe a 1pt stone even would.
 
#33
Hi ladies,
I decided that I like the U-prong pave look on the shank.

Here is the similar setting that I be getting. Pics from tpf member Erica D.


IMG_1857.jpg

IMG_3540.jpg

IMG_4537.jpg



Since, I am spending a lot of money on the stone, I don't have much budget remaining for the setting.

Here are my options. What would you choose?

Option #1: 18kt WG metal + 3/4 pave shank +diamond on supporting/basket : $2,695. Con of the pave diamond on the supporting/basket is that they delicate and tiny, the stone will often loose and it will rub against my eternity band if I decided to stack w/ other bands.

Option #2: 18kt WG metal +3/4 pave shank + No diamond on the support/basket :$2409. This pricing is affordable. I like the heaviness of platinum; however, since i have pave 3/4 on the shank, would it make any difference?

Option #3: Platinum metal +3/4 pave shank + No diamond on the supporting/basket :$2739. Pricing is little high, but don't know if it worth for platinum since they pave so less metal remaining.

I love to hear your thoughts.
 
#34
Option 3. I personally can't do WG. I think the Plat will still be stronger. I also think not having stones on the basket/donut is good because you can then wear it with other rings.
 
#35
The jeweler told me that the size of diamond on the halo are 1 size smaller than diamonds on the shank(band) because the halo is set higher and closer toward to your eyes. I see the logic.

Is that more true and common?

Or would it better if the diamond on the halo are the same size as the one on the shank(band)?
 
#36
It's common for them to be different sizes. The halo is not the same width as the shank normally and not always set the same way. I would ask them if they have photos of a ring with melee the same size in both the shank and halo and then how it is normally done so you can see them with your own eyes. Rarely do I look closely enough at a halo to see the difference.
 
#37
Last Friday, I decided on custom setting w/ 2mm on halo as well the shank. After thinking, I decided not pave on the supporting bar or basket.

My jeweler is on vacation this week. Ugh!!! Now the waiting part that I don't like because I don't have much patience.

Now 6-7 wks of waiting. So far it seems like eternity for me.
 
#38
Bagladyseattle,
The ring you posted (above) by Erica is actually my ring & I can tell you that the stones in the halo are smaller than the shank but not by much. The diamonds in the shank are 1.5mm & 1mm in the halo. I agree, that the stones on the donut do stop me from putting it with my band because I know the constant rubbing will eventually make a stone come loose & that is not something I really thought about beforehand but that aside, I love it & it's so classic!
 
#39
withmealways said:
Bagladyseattle,
The ring you posted (above) by Erica is actually my ring & I can tell you that the stones in the halo are smaller than the shank but not by much. The diamonds in the shank are 1.5mm & 1mm in the halo. I agree, that the stones on the donut do stop me from putting it with my band because I know the constant rubbing will eventually make a stone come loose & that is not something I really thought about beforehand but that aside, I love it & it's so classic!
Click to expand...

Hi there,

Your ring is stunning and I love it. What is your ring size? By any chance that you have a mod pic of the ring on your fingers that you can post here? I love to see while waiting for mine.:graucho:

I have three rows micro pave weeding band and I wear togother w/ other bands and ering, but the stome came loose and I kept loosing it due to constant rubbing. I decided to opt out having stone on the donut and supporting bars.
 
#40
The last setting you posted would probably not work if you are thinking about stacking bands. The diamonds on the side would saw into the bands. I personally prefer a single taper band (the band tapers as it approaches the center). I wear a 2 ct round halo with a tapered band and 2 diamond bands with it. My finger size is 2.75.
 
#42
Lola said:
The last setting you posted would probably not work if you are thinking about stacking bands. The diamonds on the side would saw into the bands. I personally prefer a single taper band (the band tapers as it approaches the center). I wear a 2 ct round halo with a tapered band and 2 diamond bands with it. My finger size is 2.75.
Click to expand...

I agree... I decided not diamond on the side (donut/basket).
Oh wow! ring finger sz 2.5? OMG! 2ct must look huge. jealous of your tiny fingers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top