Hi all!
I wish the photos did the antique setting justice! I will be doing a new photo shoot of the ring this week and will send Baglady pics and video to help with her decision.
Baglady, the one thing I would ask you to consider is how big of a look you want. At 2.34cts, the cushion is sizeable and a halo will make it look positively humongous (in a good way!) I actually had a 2.64ct in a halo and later upgraded to a 3.64ct cushion which I set in a bezel 5 stone (no halo). General feedback was that the smaller stone in the halo looked way bigger than the 3.64 - everyone thought I had downsized! So a halo will really add weight to a stone. The vintage setting is more understated. It's a matter of preference and what your goal is, finger coverage-wise.
I wish the photos did the antique setting justice! I will be doing a new photo shoot of the ring this week and will send Baglady pics and video to help with her decision.
Baglady, the one thing I would ask you to consider is how big of a look you want. At 2.34cts, the cushion is sizeable and a halo will make it look positively humongous (in a good way!) I actually had a 2.64ct in a halo and later upgraded to a 3.64ct cushion which I set in a bezel 5 stone (no halo). General feedback was that the smaller stone in the halo looked way bigger than the 3.64 - everyone thought I had downsized! So a halo will really add weight to a stone. The vintage setting is more understated. It's a matter of preference and what your goal is, finger coverage-wise.