Cant Decide!

NakedFinger · Jan 14, 2009

Ok...so I know in the end its my decision...and my preference. But I wanted your opinions ladies.

Would you rather a 1.70 carat cushion with a pave diamond band and halo? Or a 2.0 carat cushion in a simple pave band? I cant decide whether to go down in center stone size, to get a more elaborate setting, or just let the center stone do the talking

Both are close in price.

(PS: if anyone has a cushion with a halo, I''d love to see pics!)

ckrickett · Jan 14, 2009

I would go with the 2 carat, not because it''s bigger, But because thats a more classic setting. I ADORE halos, but it''s not something I''m sure I will like forever. A simply stunning elegant setting with a killer stone will last the tests of time.
BTW Im in the same ordeal, with the same stats on the same cut stone!

princesss · Jan 14, 2009

Depends on the halo. A HW inspired halo? Yes. Any other halo? Heck no.

Honestly, I''d put my money into the stone.

Dreamgirl · Jan 14, 2009

2ct cushion pave band sounds tasty

Bia · Jan 14, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 3:22:30 PM
Author: Dreamgirl
2ct cushion pave band sounds tasty

Yup. I''d put more money into the stone itself. Later, if I wanted to change the setting to a halo, I would.

sammyj · Jan 14, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 3:33:56 PM
Author: Bia

Date: 1/14/2009 3:22:30 PM
Author: Dreamgirl
2ct cushion pave band sounds tasty

Click to expand...

Yup. I''d put more money into the stone itself. Later, if I wanted to change the setting to a halo, I would.

I agree. But if you love halos and you can design the setting yourself to meet your specifications exactly, go for it! You can get your added finger coverage and sparkle from your halo. Either way, your future ring sounds fabulous!

Brown.Eyed.Girl · Jan 14, 2009

2 ct.

You can add a halo later if you want, and that way, you get the bigger ring, AND the halo, eventually

Prinny · Jan 14, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 4:04:51 PM
Author: Brown.Eyed.Girl
2 ct.

You can add a halo later if you want, and that way, you get the bigger ring, AND the halo, eventually

I agree. At first I was thinking 1.70 with a halo, but I would probably choose the bigger diamond and modify the rest if you choose to later.
Good Luck deciding

Tuckins1 · Jan 14, 2009

I vote 2ct...

BlueSki231 · Jan 14, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 4:04:51 PM
Author: Brown.Eyed.Girl
2 ct.

You can add a halo later if you want, and that way, you get the bigger ring, AND the halo, eventually

YUP I agree with this too!

Winks_Elf · Jan 14, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 2:44:55 PM
Author: ckrickett
I would go with the 2 carat, not because it''s bigger, But because thats a more classic setting. I ADORE halos, but it''s not something I''m sure I will like forever. A simply stunning elegant setting with a killer stone will last the tests of time.

#1!

mrscushion · Jan 14, 2009

Another vote for the 2ct minus the halo, just a personal preference. However, either way, it will be stunning.

that_someone_special · Jan 14, 2009

#2!!!!!!

musey · Jan 14, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 3:07:10 PM
Author: princesss
Depends on the halo. A HW inspired halo? Yes. Any other halo? Heck no.

Honestly, I''d put my money into the stone.

Ditto, if you love both settings equally, go for the bigger stone IMO.

Porridge · Jan 14, 2009

My vote is the 2ct!

Izzy03 · Jan 14, 2009

Definitely the 2 ct! I agree with some of the others, NOT because it is a bigger stone, but just because the halo has become very trendy. While halos are BEAUTIFUL, I am not sure they are as timeless as having a single stone with a pave band.

However, I am a little bias, my ring is a 2.4 cushion with a thin pave band, I LOVE IT!

ilovethiswebsite · Jan 14, 2009

Hmmmm... I vote for the 1.7 carat plus halo. I like halos but I LOVEEEEEEEEE halos on cushions, esp. HW style. I think the halo on a cushion is so breathtaking. I don't think a 2 carat cushion on a plain pave band would be as nice, although still beautiful. Moreover, the 1.7 with halo will look even bigger and blingier than a 2 carat sans halo.

Blackpaw · Jan 15, 2009

definitely 2ct cushion

AmberGretchen · Jan 15, 2009

I *think* I''d prefer the halo, but I think actually what''s more important is for you to go try those different styles on, if you possibly can. Sometimes things just look right or wrong on one person''s hands that might look amazing on another person''s hand. I LOVE solitaires, but they look icky on me, so I have a three-stone.

This is a really big decision, I think its worth trying to figure out which you like the look of better on YOUR hand.

AdiS · Jan 16, 2009

I''d take the 2ct stone. You can always change the setting later if you still want a halo. But it''s easier and less expensive to change a setting than buy a new stone IMO.

AllieGator · Jan 16, 2009

I''d go with the 2 carat stone...it''s a really nice look, and you could always get a halo later if you wanted.

Definitely. Maybe · Jan 16, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 10:15:51 PM
Author: ilovethiswebsite
Hmmmm... I vote for the 1.7 carat plus halo. I like halos but I LOVEEEEEEEEE halos on cushions, esp. HW style. I think the halo on a cushion is so breathtaking. I don''t think a 2 carat cushion on a plain pave band would be as nice, although still beautiful. Moreover, the 1.7 with halo will look even bigger and blingier than a 2 carat sans halo.

I agree with ilovethiswebsite and vote for the 1.7 with the halo.

Bliss · Jan 16, 2009

What a great dilemma! I''d definitely go for the bigger stone!!!!

The other posters are right - if you want a halo later, you can do so...with the yummier stone. Can''t wait to see it!

audball · Jan 16, 2009

I agree with crickett, halos are great, but the 2ct alone will stand the test of time and will be something you''ll never regret...

Haven · Jan 16, 2009

Date: 1/14/2009 2:44:55 PM
Author: ckrickett
I would go with the 2 carat, not because it''s bigger, But because thats a more classic setting. I ADORE halos, but it''s not something I''m sure I will like forever. A simply stunning elegant setting with a killer stone will last the tests of time.

Ditto. But, I have a 2 ct cushion on a shared-prong eternity band for my e-ring, so I''m biased! (Pave and shared-prong are close enough, right? I went shared-prong because of the extra bling factor!)

I think it''s a fabulous problem to have, by the way!

NakedFinger · Jan 16, 2009

Date: 1/16/2009 12:50:42 PM
Author: Haven

Date: 1/14/2009 2:44:55 PM
Author: ckrickett
I would go with the 2 carat, not because it's bigger, But because thats a more classic setting. I ADORE halos, but it's not something I'm sure I will like forever. A simply stunning elegant setting with a killer stone will last the tests of time.

Click to expand...

Ditto. But, I have a 2 ct cushion on a shared-prong eternity band for my e-ring, so I'm biased! (Pave and shared-prong are close enough, right? I went shared-prong because of the extra bling factor!)

I think it's a fabulous problem to have, by the way!

Haha thanks! Guess I cant complain. I would LOVE to see what your ring looks like. Mind posting a pic??

Thank you ladies for all your input. We went to the jeweler last night, and I saw the 2ct in person. Enough said!!!

Note: I should mention that the 1.7 would have been a cushion modified brilliant (the crushed glass) look, which is why I would have gotten a halo cause they go better together. My my true love are cushion brilliants (the antique look, big facets, etc). And that baby looked so elegant by itself, it doesnt need a thing!

misskitty · Jan 16, 2009

I was just about to echo the 2ct/no halo choice, but I see you''ve updated! Glad you love it

NakedFinger · Jan 16, 2009

Date: 1/16/2009 1:16:34 PM
Author: NakedFinger

Date: 1/16/2009 12:50:42 PM
Author: Haven

Date: 1/14/2009 2:44:55 PM
Author: ckrickett
I would go with the 2 carat, not because it''s bigger, But because thats a more classic setting. I ADORE halos, but it''s not something I''m sure I will like forever. A simply stunning elegant setting with a killer stone will last the tests of time.

Click to expand...

Ditto. But, I have a 2 ct cushion on a shared-prong eternity band for my e-ring, so I''m biased! (Pave and shared-prong are close enough, right? I went shared-prong because of the extra bling factor!)

I think it''s a fabulous problem to have, by the way!

Click to expand...

Haha thanks! Guess I cant complain. I would LOVE to see what your ring looks like. Mind posting a pic??

Thank you ladies for all your input. We went to the jeweler last night, and I saw the 2ct in person. Enough said!!!

Note: I should mention that the 1.7 would have been a cushion modified brilliant (the crushed glass) look, which is why I would have gotten a halo cause they go better together. My my true love are cushion brilliants (the antique look, big facets, etc). And that baby looked so elegant by itself, it doesnt need a thing!

Sorry, which is what the 2ct was. I cant type today!

musey · Jan 16, 2009

Yay, congrats on making your choice! I, too, prefer the older cushions with chunky facets. YUM!

Bliss · Jan 16, 2009

OOOOOOOOOHHHH!

Nice choice! 2 caraaaaaaaaaaaaats..... YUMMY!

Must. See. Big. Rock.

Need. Photos. Now.

Cant Decide!

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Rough_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Brilliant_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock