6 prong with a raised head.. a mistake?

[JoshM_DC]

Hi all,

My search for an engagement ring continues, but I think it''s almost over. A new question for all:

I''m thinking of a 6 prong head, raised, so the band can sit flush against a wedding band. WhiteFlash advised me that that may be an issue, since it requires raising the head so much that it may be in danger (more than usual at least) of knocking against things and the stone falling out.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I accept their experienced opinion, but it seems odd to me that people don''t get raised 6 prong heads. Is there another approach?

Thanks.

Josh

 

[FireGoddess]

I didn''t get my ring from WF, but I can tell you with my original wedding set that had a generic 6 prong setting there was hardly any gap between that and a wedding band. Maybe a mm or so? You can see in the pic it''s not much.

I would live with that personally, rather than getting a high head put on the ring and putting the diamond in a precarious situation. If they say it''s too high....it''s too high, IMO!!

 

[mrssalvo]

I agree. You''d either have to choose a different design that will allow for a wedding band to sit flush or have a small gap. I would definitely listen to WF as they are making your ring.

 

[asscherisme]

I don''t have a 6 prong, but I will tell you that I would not want my diamond to sit too high. I have 2 diamond rings. One round, and one 3 stone asscher and both are set relatively low. In fact when my husband was shopping I asked him to have the rings set low.

And if you are going to have kids one day, that high ring could also get in the way of taking care of the baby or scratch the baby.

I am always afraid of bumping my ring and they are low. I agree with WF. Go for something lower.

I would rather have a small gap and a lower setting than high setting and no gap.

Or you could go for 4 prongs. My round diamond is in 4 prongs and it sits flush with my wedding band.

 

[JoshM_DC]

Gotcha. I''ll suggest to the GF that we go with either a 4-prong head, or just let a minimal gap exist between the two bands.

Thanks!

 

[mrssalvo]

I think 4 prongs shows more diamond and like how it looks.

 

[pebbles]

Here''s my old stone and old setting. It is the basic 4 prong setting from WF. No modifications made to it, and it sat pretty darn flush with my eternity band. The stone in it is a 1.04ct.

 

[ladykemma]

high high high as high as they can set em. makes the diamond prettier. 6 prongs for safety.

this generation is set (ha ha) on low setting. but in my day high cathedral settings were all the rage.

there was a thread on this a coupla days ago where is it? anyone know?

 

[ladykemma]

here are two rings center stones set incredibly high, I think it "pops" the stone more.

my co workers are always staring at my rings. they, of a different generation, opted to set theirs very low. and their wedding bands all crazy bent.

whose sparkle more? mine

well, mine are cleaner too....

 

[decodelighted]

C''mon Lady Kenna ... too high just looks silly ... like the little bugger is trying too hard. Though I did joke with a jeweler recently that if they developed a setting where the stone could hover over my hand a couple feet in the air, i''d do it. SIZE HO, am I!!!

I''m in the process of lowering my stone now (hopefully) so I''d have to vote LOW w/teeny gap rather than HIGH/no gap/ unsafe.

Having never been a big "ring" person before my engagement I had NO IDEA how easy it is to knock into things, get caught up in fabric etc etc.... I want it to last a lifetime & be easy to wear!

My 2 cents!

 

[ladykemma]

i do think this is a generational thang

 

[jcrow]

have you asked about them notching the head of the e-ring? they may be able to do this so that the rings fit together without having to raise the head.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 4/19/2006 6:57:24 PM
Author: ladykemma
i do think this is a generational thang

Maybe so. I''m 38?? One of my sisters (32) has her rather spready RB set up what looks like WAY too high to me though (her DH''s choice). It doesn''t look like it "fills out" the head AT ALL. More like floating over the setting rather than an intregal part of it. Eh, personal taste like every other widdle ting we talk about on here!

Except, of course, our eternal, communal love of LEMON PIE!

 

[lil_jay78]

Date: 4/19/2006 6:28:40 PM
Author: JoshM_DC
Gotcha. I''ll suggest to the GF that we go with either a 4-prong head, or just let a minimal gap exist between the two bands.


Thanks!

Josh, I''m going through the same thing! So weird...feels like Deja Vu.

Anyway, I''m looking for a 6-prong that would sit flush w/ a plain band as well. Someone from PS(I don''t recall exactly who at the moment) said that Dimend Scaasi had some 6-prong solitaire settings...and I found this:

http://www.dimendscaasi.com/build/step1.asp?prodID=1A3-1

That is more or less what I was looking for. I was chatting with the dscaasi reps about some specs on the ring and the band is 3mm. I want a thinner band, probably around 2 or 2.5mm, so I was checking to see if they had a thinner band and whether or not I could purchase the setting from them. Unfortunately, she informed me that they do not sell their settings separately, so I took the picture and e-mailed it to WF, as well as taking it to a local jeweler here in socal. Both quoted me around the same amount, but neither said anything about the setting being too high. I''ll probably ask them that myself today. From the looks of the pic above though, the stone doesn''t seem to be set too high...anyone have an opinion on that?

 

[decodelighted]

oops - double post

 

[decodelighted]

Have you 6 prong lookers checked out Matatora''s new Lockes solitare??? It''s GORGEOUS! She had her stone sent to them and they set it. Prettiest solitare setting I''ve EVER EVER EVER seen (many on here would probably agree).

Just a thought!

ETA ... Here is a link to her thread & many many awesome pix

 

[ladykemma]

Date: 4/19/2006 7:03:20 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 4/19/2006 6:57:24 PM
Author: ladykemma
i do think this is a generational thang

Maybe so. I''m 38?? One of my sisters (32) has her rather spready RB set up what looks like WAY too high to me though (her DH''s choice). It doesn''t look like it ''fills out'' the head AT ALL. More like floating over the setting rather than an intregal part of it. Eh, personal taste like every other widdle ting we talk about on here!

Except, of course, our eternal, communal love of LEMON PIE!

I''m 43, so huh? i guess you''re right. taste differs. i notice that low set rings are all the rage right now. and in areas where people have to wear winter gloves, like new york.

one of the most stunning rings I ever saw was on a parking lot bus in the texas medical center - there was a doctor who had 20 points(?) on a plain tiffany set very high. it was breathtaking and stuck with me through my diamond collecting. i like ''em high....and I haven''t scratched a baby yit.

By the way, someone mentioned-- rings/prongs shouldn''t catching on things. should be smooth. this can happen whether set high or low. i haven''t knocked a stone out yet, although I have bent prongs.

 

[lil_jay78]

Date: 4/19/2006 7:13:39 PM
Author: decodelighted
Have you 6 prong lookers checked out Matatora''s new Lockes solitare??? It''s GORGEOUS! She had her stone sent to them and they set it. Prettiest solitare setting I''ve EVER EVER EVER seen (many on here would probably agree).


Just a thought!


ETA ... Here is a link to her thread & many many awesome pix

Mata
I never got the chance to chime in about your ring! It is absolutely stunning!!! I love it! Mon Dieu!!!!

 

[lil_jay78]

btw - Is there a link to the Locke sight?

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 4/19/2006 7:30:53 PM
Author: lil_jay78
btw - Is there a link to the Locke sight?

I think this is it ... but they''re more a retail store in NYC than online store. Mat did arrange her purchase online I think ... hopefully she''ll weigh in soon!

http://www.lockesdiamonds.com/

 

[Dancing Fire]

i think high setting will make the stone look bigger.