bezel of prong set for halo

[allycat0303]

Hey everyone,

The setting questions are driving me insane. I want a halo on my setting and I can''t decide if the diamond should be prong set or bezel set. Does anyone know if a bezel set diamond reduces the amount of light return? I like bezel because I would feel that a center stone would be more protected from chipping on the edges (the stone I''m considering has from very thin to thick girdle) but on the other hand, I don''t know what it would do to the amount of light entering the stone.

Thanks!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

My diamond pendant is bezel set and I think that the diamond has an ever-so-slight bit of light loss, but it''s not really noticable to the eye - the stone sparkles like crazy and I love the look of the bezel so I wouldn''t change this for anything!

If you pick out a VERY well-cut stone, you shouldn''t have a problem.

 

[FireGoddess]

I think the Ritani endless love bezel set rings are absolutely gorgeous. But I have to say, the halo thing is going to be personal preference, and it does depend on your stone. I first tried having my pear bezel set, and I do think that it covers up some of the stone and can diminish some of its presence, and in the end I went with prong setting above the halo. I liked it much better than when my pear was bezel set. But I do think it''s personal preference, and it can depend on the stone. Like I said - I love the RBs in the Ritani halos....

 

[diamondlil]

I was told that as long as the stone is very well cut (ideal), it would not be a problem. As far as protection to the girdle, I will say that the halo on my pear serves as pretty good protection in itself. My stone is prong set, but with the halo being wider all the way around, I have bumped that a couple of times, but not the pear. I tend to like higher settings so I went with prongs, but I know that many here at PS prefer as low as possible. Would low be more comfortable for you?

DiamondLil

 

[allycat0303]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for the replies! Firegoddess, I actually sent your ring pics to Whiteflash for inspiration on what I want. I want my ring to be as low as possible, and I was considering bezel setting the center diamond to protect it. Although Diamonddil, I think you''re right that the actual halo might be sufficient. I am a bit concerned because the stone I''m considering has a very thin girdle (at some points) so I''m worried about chipping. Maybe I should just hide that area under one of the prongs.

Thanks for your help

 

[FireGoddess]

Hey Hon - glad my pictures were of use to you!! Definitely don''t worry about the girdle - seriously - as diamondlil said, my stone also NEVER has come into contact with anything since being put into the halo. The halo has taken all of 2 hits since I got it (no damage, not even a scratch) and the diamond hasn''t come near anything. If it''s possible and you feel more comfortable, put it under a prong, but really - no worries. The halo does an exquisite job of protecting the center stone...an added bonus I never realized beforehand!!

 

[velouriaL]

I like bezel setting with an airline. Mmm... perfection!

 

[appletini]

Ally your ring is going to be gorgeous! I can''t wait to see it!

 

[allycat0303]

Firegoddess: I don''t think you realize how many people have been drooling over your ring

. The other thing which has been getting to me is that I want a 1pt melee in the band (I think that is what you have) but Whiteflash has said they can''t do it because it might compromise the intergrity of the band! I wrote to them again and hopefully something can be done. The setting I am probably having made is similar to the one on dirtcheapdiamonds website (for an RB) I''m a bit nervous that the halo might overpower my stone because it''s a small center. SO many decisions!

 

[valeria101]

bezels add some contrast, prongs make for daintier settings - and the choice is really personal.

but... neither is more protective, IMO (or not substantially so). As long as the girdle stays close to the halo, most direction of potential impact are still covered by the bezel. For this, the prongs would be really short and small - as opposed to suspending the diamond high over the bezel underneath.

Any chance you could seee both versions somewhere ?

 

[Kaleigh]

I vote for prongs. I love firegodess'' ring.

 

[allycat0303]

Valeria,

I live in Canada. I think that should say it all

. Basically there''s solitaires (tiffany 6 prong-like setting in white or yellow gold) and three stone rings to be exciting. No pave, no fancy shapes (except princesses) as a matter a fact, most didn''t know there was such thing as a cushion. I looked up ritani dealers (I live in Montreal) and the site said there were no dealers within a 50 mile radius. So I''m relying heavily on pricescope for all info.

I wrote an email to Renee saying I wanted the diamond as low to the bezel as possible! (as per your suggestion), and of course asking if there was some way shape or form I could get 1pt for the band. I really hope so, I would rather take the chance of it breaking then having a band which was thicker then I wanted.

 

[FireGoddess]

So, about that melee!! I originally wanted 2 pointers in the band and 1 pointers in the halo. What I ended up getting was 2 pointers all around - in the bands and in the halo. It was a judgment call made by the jeweler. I think he did the right thing in my case. Two pointers that are prong set are a different animal than 2 pointers in a channel set. I know it seems weird but the thickness of the band in those 2 cases is going to be different. With the 2 pointers in the shared prong setting on the band, my bands come in at practically 1.5 mm on top, and on the bottom (since my bands are only half eternity) they are a little under 2mm. This also gives them a teeny, tiny space at the top so the edges of the diamonds don''t scratch each other...but I have to reiterate...the bands are tiny (which was exactly what I wanted). I forgot how big your stone is...I did a quick thread search but couldn''t find it. You might do 2 pointers in the band, and 1 pointers in the halo, as diamondlil did.

It''s funny, but I''m always drooling over everyone else''s ring, I never think that others may be doing anything similar to mine. It''s such a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[Maxine]

thinking ahead, these have bands that match........

 

[FireGoddess]

One more thing - I originally wanted the look of the band to be (sizewise) like cel'n'gee's ring below. She states that her ring is a 1 ct rb with a 1.7 mm band and 1 pt melee. That seems at odds with what my jeweler told me...that my band is 2 pt melee and comes in just under that mm width. When I told my jeweler to put 1 pointers in the band, she was like, "Uh, no. Not if you want them prong set." Anyway, here's her ring. Are you doing a prong set or channel set band?

 

[BrightSpot]

Fire Goddess, I''m definitely drooling over your ring!

Allycat, I can''t wait to see yours!

I''m in the process of having a ring made that will have an octagonal bezel setting w/ an airline, but I did that mostly because I liked the way it made the round stone look octagonal in shape. I think bezel or prong setting would be lovely for you, but the prong setting may draw a bit more attention to your center stone as it would be set higher.

 

[allycat0303]

Firegoddess:

I feel better! My favorite part of your ring is the tiny band, I thought your band was much too tiny to be 2pt. Renee said it would be 1pt in my halo (my is a 1.27 RB much smaller then your) but I''m annoying her on the 1pt in the band thing. However, since yours is 2 pt in the band, and it looks tiny, if she says 1pt can not be done, then it''ll be ok. Hmmm maybe I could ask her to do a shared prong with 2pt and 1pt in the halo. She had said that with the dirtcheapdiamond-like setting (it''s not a shared prong), the band would be from 2 to 2.5 mm which is WAY more then what I want. I definitely want that band under 2 mm. She''s going to MURDER me.

Your ring is a positively drool worthy. I''m just trying to figure out a way to get the general look but taking into account that I have a much smaller stone. Ahhh I''m a copycat, what can I say

 

[blueroses]

Ally, I am so excited for your ring!!!!

I like the look of both--it kind of depends. Some halo rings even seem to be bezel AND prong set, although I know that can''t probably be in terms of the structure, but both Reena''s and Lovey''s seem to have prongs, but also be partly held in by the bezel....If you love the look of FireGoddess''s (and really, who doesn''t!!!) then I''d say the prongs

(Oh, and is this the DCD one you mean?)

 

[allycat0303]

I was just going to edit, but I''ll post again. This is my ring, for the side view, I''m getting rid of the bubble things (I''m not sure if you know what I mean). And I might have the band changed to a 2 point shared prong so the width is smaller. We''ll see

 

[strmrdr]

I like bezel setting for halo''s.
It is really hard to get the prongs to blend into the design right.
A lot of them look out of place.
You lose a little off angle light return with a bezel but with a halo your losing it anyway so its not an issue.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/15/2005 2:58:41 PM
Author: allycat0303
The setting I am probably having made is similar to the one on dirtcheapdiamonds website (for an RB) I''m a bit nervous that the halo might overpower my stone because it''s a small center. SO many decisions!

Are you kidding? 1.27 isn''t "small'' by any means!

 

[FireGoddess]

I don''t know if you can see - I went through all my pictures and this was the only one you could sorta see the top half and bottom half of the bands...but you can see there is a slight difference in width between the shared prong half and the plain metal half...that is a fraction of a mm but makes a visible difference, especially in person! The shared prong factor definitely makes the band a little thinner there.

When planning the ring, I was a little worried about going 2 pointers when I had decided on 1 pointers. I knew Mara''s rings were 3 pointers, and I wanted mine visibly thinner than hers. I was pleasantly shocked at how thin the bands ended up being. The wax of course was bigger than I wanted the final rings to be, but that''s always the case and was not a true indicator of how thin the bands were after the shared prong setting.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 6/15/2005 4:03:40 PM
Author: allycat0303
This is my ring, ... might have the band changed to a 2 point shared prong so the width is smaller.

Wow! that is my favorite piece is the DCD set - definitely KISS-compliant

which is very important, of course

Oh well... about the shared prongs, those are larger than the beads rised for pave (of course, this might not be the case for a particular setting - no way to know how relevant the average is for this case). So there is a tradeoff, at least in theory. It doesn't help that the profile look of those tiny shared prongs resembles an old fashioned gas burner, IMO.

Side view of traditional pave And the shared prongs (snagging ? and less rigid band ?)

examples from Walter Arnstein (thenaturalsapphirecompany.com), catalog #P29 and #P245. To tell if one is more delicate in person, the pictures should be scaled. Between the two, the version to the left is the traditional construction - shared prong settings are relative newcommers, as far as I know.


Given how famous pave is, perhaps one of the experts on the forum could drop a line about these... is one version technically better or is it all a matter of taste ? Wink ? Feydakin ? Platinumsmith ?

 

[icekid]

FG- just wanted to tell you that i sent pictures of your ring to whiteflash also! b/c i really like the prong setting on your ring, which is what i decided for mine.

lucky for me, there''s a ritani dealer a 5 min walk from my apartment so it was easy to try it out. and though i REALLY like the look of the ritani bezel on the computer, i much preferred prongs in person. but both are yummmmmmmmy!

 

[allycat0303]

Hey Everyone,

Valaria: I love the pics you posted! Intresting point about the gas burner look

. Actually I was wondering with the side view of my ring, and the one's you posted were a bit what I was thinking.

Aljdewey: It's funny about the 1.27. Initally I was really set on a 1.6- 1.7 carat, actaully my boyfriend called Renee up to say that he wanted a bigger stone. The thing is I'm short (5'1 with a cheat) and I have yet to pass for 18 without being carded. So I think maybe a 1.6 stone with a halo would be too much. However, I'm VERY concerned about the halo overpowering my stone, which is why I am still debating (a bit) getting a bigger stone. But I love the stone you picked (color, flourescence, ideal scope), so I'm a bit torn. Also unfortunate is I've never seen a 1.27 or even a 1.5 carat in Montreal so I have no visual comparision.

Firegoddess: I do see a slight difference, it's those little details that make it stunning. 'My preference is for the thinnist band possible. However, Renee said that 2 pt would come out to about 2.5 mm. I currently have a 2mm eternity band, and I think it is too wide. I think this is the last design detail I want to hash out. I hope they agree to do a 1pt on the band. Or can assure me that 2pt will come out to exactly 2mm or less band.

By the way, does anyone know what will happen with the sizing? I was wondering about that bar thing under the ring, do I need a bigger or a smaller size? I have two rings that are a 4.5 which are perfect, and an eternity band that is "supposed"to be a 4.5 that is too small. I personally (I know this is wierd) prefer it when my ring spin! My criteria is that I have to be able to shake my had vigorously and the ring slides off on it's own.

I think that might be all for the questions! Sorry everyone, I REALLY appreciate the help.

 

[diamondlil]

Ally,

LOL, 1.27 is definitely NOT small. It''s funny how haning around PS can warp your senses.

I think with the shared prong and 2 point stones, you will end up with less than 2 mm width on the band. Mine are not shared prong and, like WF has quoted, are a little under 2.5 mm wide. My stones are 2 points in my bands (1 pointers in halo) and have pave set diamonds. There is a very thin rim of metal on each side of the diamonds and the diamonds are held in place by tiny beads. This thin rim of metal definitely adds to the width of the band, and with shared prong, you won''t have that. Does that make sense?

Love the DirtCheap pave settings, by the way. They were on my list of considerations before I got my rings too as well as WF!

DiamondLil

 

[diamondlil]

Date: 6/15/2005 3:45:44 PM
Author: FireGoddess

It''s funny, but I''m always drooling over everyone else''s ring, I never think that others may be doing anything similar to mine. It''s such a warm fuzzy feeling.

I''m telling you, hanging around PS too long messes with our sensibilities!!!!

The grass always seems greener, doesn''t it?

DiamondLil