Changing my mind? Your thoughts wanted!

[rubybeth]

My dilemma: I really like two kinds of rings for myself. One is a simple solitaire look (I really like square shapes, someday dream of having a 1 carat asscher, but that''s out of the budget for my e-ring, so will probably have my first love, a princess cut) with narrow bands of shiny white gold, thus putting all the emphasis on the center stone. The other thing I like are eternity bands, or half eternity bands. I kind of thought S and I were on the same page about getting me an eternity band-looking ring from the Facets Collection to wear as my e-ring/w-ring, but now we''re not so sure that''s what we want to do. We did a bit of shopping yesterday just to see what a .5 carat princess looks like with settings similar to what I''ve seen online, and I quite like the look.

So, I kind of want to pick between something simple, and something with a bit more interest than the classic solitaire. I would post this in Rocky Talky, but you ladies always give such helpful, personal advice, I know you wouldn''t steer me wrong!

What would you choose and why, given the following options:

.5 carat princess cut solitaire to later be worn with a plain white gold w-band

.5 carat princess cut in pavé shank to later be worn with a pavé wedding band.

Both shanks are pretty narrow (2mm on the first, 2.1mm on the second) so the .5 carat would appear proportionately larger on my size 5.5 hand (got officially sized yesterday, too!). I should also mention that the main thing we learned in shopping yesterday is that we both really prefer the look of matching "sets" of rings, so it''s unlikely that I would get the solitaire and then the pavé wedding band. It doesn''t appeal to either of our senses of balance (me in the librarian sense, him in the artist sense).

 

[sandia_rose]

I like the idea of the pave set more than I do the plain. Your viewpoint might differ, but if it were me, I''d want something a little different than what''s out there. A lot - A LOT - of guys who buy rings without the woman''s involvement choose plainer solitaires because they''re "safe." Chances are, their moms have one, they''re a classic style that pretty much anyone can wear, etc. But I like the pave styles for the same reason I like halos - they offer more bling and make a stone look larger than a plain setting. Style-wise, pave is not so out-there that it will date your look or come across as strange-looking. Right now, the vintage look is huge and pave falls right in there.

I''m also not a matchy kind of girl - it''s more important to me to have a set that looks good on me as opposed to matches my guy''s. In my case, when I get engaged, my boyfriend is going to want a plain band or something without stones in it. He''s in construction and would destroy anything detailed or with stones. He was married for 20 years prior to meeting me and never, ever took his ring off. He still has it in his drawer and it''s clearly been though the ringer (he said that it used to have a braided design...but you can''t tell because it''s worn smooth) - and it had to get cut off. I, on the other hand, have an office job, so my jewelery can be pretty elaborate and not get in the way.

If you''re looking for something that matches your guy''s ring, why not have personal matching engravings on the inside of the wedding bands? A friend of mine did this. Her ring is yellow gold and her husband''s is titanium. They have half of a line of a country song (Travis Tritt, I think?) on theirs. If I remember correctly, hers says, "I''m gonna love you forever," and his says, "Forever and ever, Amen." The engravings don''t make any sense unless you read them together, which I thought very cool. They danced to that song as their first dance at their reception....

Bridget in Connecticut.

 

[rubybeth]

Thanks, Bridget! I think I am leaning toward the pavé for my set. Price is not a huge issue, since I offered to pay for the setting, and it''s only about a $200 difference for the bands, which probably wouldn''t break the bank (ah, the lives of students!). And I meant matchy in the sense of my two rings matching each other, and looking more like a set. He can get whatever he wants (within reason

) for his ring. I''ve shown him a bunch of wedding bands online and in stores, and he''s into some things that I would consider "out there," plus he likes yellow gold, which is so not my thing, but hey, if he likes it and wants to wear it, fine with me!

 

[Rhea]

I'd chose the plain solitaire and the pave wedding band, but with the solitaire setting narrower than pictured, closer to the width of the pave setting.

I think the main stone will stand out more that way. And it'd be kinda mix and match, two different looks to the point. Is there any reason you didn't want to mix them in your original post?

 

[sunnyd]

i''m partial to pave, so you can guess what my answer will be...

additional little sparklies, and i think it looks more feminine. just my opinion!

 

[risingsun]

The pave looks so pretty...it would be my choice!

 

[mimzy]

Date: 12/24/2007 12:04:43 PM
Author: sandia_rose
I like the idea of the pave set more than I do the plain. Your viewpoint might differ, but if it were me, I''d want something a little different than what''s out there. A lot - A LOT - of guys who buy rings without the woman''s involvement choose plainer solitaires because they''re ''safe.'' Chances are, their moms have one, they''re a classic style that pretty much anyone can wear, etc. But I like the pave styles for the same reason I like halos - they offer more bling and make a stone look larger than a plain setting. Style-wise, pave is not so out-there that it will date your look or come across as strange-looking. Right now, the vintage look is huge and pave falls right in there.


I''m also not a matchy kind of girl - it''s more important to me to have a set that looks good on me as opposed to matches my guy''s. In my case, when I get engaged, my boyfriend is going to want a plain band or something without stones in it. He''s in construction and would destroy anything detailed or with stones. He was married for 20 years prior to meeting me and never, ever took his ring off. He still has it in his drawer and it''s clearly been though the ringer (he said that it used to have a braided design...but you can''t tell because it''s worn smooth) - and it had to get cut off. I, on the other hand, have an office job, so my jewelery can be pretty elaborate and not get in the way.


If you''re looking for something that matches your guy''s ring, why not have personal matching engravings on the inside of the wedding bands? A friend of mine did this. Her ring is yellow gold and her husband''s is titanium. They have half of a line of a country song (Travis Tritt, I think?) on theirs. If I remember correctly, hers says, ''I''m gonna love you forever,'' and his says, ''Forever and ever, Amen.'' The engravings don''t make any sense unless you read them together, which I thought very cool. They danced to that song as their first dance at their reception....


Bridget in Connecticut.

that''s totally a randy travis song

(and a really cute one at that!)

 

[FrekeChild]

I think you could do either one well. I personally like the solitaire without the pave because that''s just my personal preference. I plan on having non matchy rings because I like the idea of each of them being able to stand out on their own, but also being interesting together. What I''d probably do in your situation is get the non-pave solitaire and then the pave w-ring to add that extra bling. Or you could just do the plain bands for now, and get a fabulous RHR a little farther down the road. What does your fiance like better?

 

[doxielover]

I too would go for the pave set, very pretty

 

[tberube]

How about the plain solitaire ering with an eternity wedding band?

 

[rubybeth]

I like the ideas everyone has offered. I doubt we''d do a plain solitaire with an eternity-like w-ring, but we''ll see. At the mo'' I really want the pavé, and S likes it, too, just not a huge fan (yet). He really liked the antique rings we''ve looked at, too. I think it may be a while before we agree perfectly on something, so fingers crossed.

Does anyone else dream of diamonds? I keep waking up and realizing I''ve been ''thinking'' about rings all night. Ack, I hope the waiting is over soon!

 

[brooke.lynne]

Ruby,

I''m partial to pave as well. But there is a lot to be said for a simpler, more toned down look. But I think you should consider suggestion about getting the solitaire and pairing it with an eternity band, maybe something channel set, to get the best of both worlds.

My finger is a 5.5 too, and I am aiming around a half carat on a 2 mm band as well, but PS is slowly making me want bigger and bigger!