channel set band width

[jsk8g]

first time poster... just ran across this site via a google search.

i very recently received a BEAUTIFUL e-ring that i LOVE. it is a RB solitaire with channel set stones almost half-way down each side. the center stone is gorgeous and on my finger, when i''m looking down on it, i have no complaints. BUT... the width of the band varies as it goes around, with the band being thinnest on the bottom. also, if i am looking at the ring from the side (i.e. if it were sitting on a flat surface, and i was looking down on it with the stone facing away from me), the thickness of the band (between the inner and outer diameter) again decreases towards the bottom. these are really minor issues and the ring feels and looks fine on, but i really wish that the band had a uniform thickness and width. would it be too much to ask my fiance to take it back to the b&m jeweler? is it worth the extra "work" on the ring to get it made "right" or am i being completely insane? i do not like the idea of having a "redone" ring, but it should have been made correctly to begin with...any advice would be great!

 

[stone-cold11]

It is probably designed this way, a uniform ring width is more common. Any pictures?

 

[jsk8g]

some pictures...

 

[jsk8g]

varying thickness (thinnest at bottom)

 

[jsk8g]

varying width (narrowest at bottom)

 

[stone-cold11]

yap, looked tapered. Maybe for balance or they just want to save some metal? No idea how much work or if it is even possible to make the setting with uniform thickness without changing the setting. There are definitely settings of uniform width with the same design out there.

 

[ms.halo]

I think this is also done to make rings more comfortable to wear.

 

[clgwli]

As someone who owns a channel set band that doesn''t taper at all, I can tell you one of my next projects is to get it shaved down because it isn''t all that comfortable to wear. It is totally uniform in width and thickness and i am really not liking it anymore. I like the look, I just hate the feel. The diamond ring I wear with it does taper and I like how it feels. I can''t see the difference on my finger, so I definitely wouldn''t take one back to get more metal added.

 

[Cinna]

I just realized that out of all the rings I own, my engagement ring is the only one that has an equivalent length throughout the band. (I just checked... or used this post as an excuse to pull it back out again

) It's also a channel that goes down the band partially. I think it would look more feminine and prefer it to be thinner at the bottom of my rings, but I guess that's personal preference. Is there a specific reason that you like it to be equivalent or think that's the "right" way to have a ring be because even though I'm not that experienced with engagement ring width but 100% sure it's just designed that way. I also don't think it's worth having it redone if you really love it.

 

[jsk8g]

Thanks so much for the responses! I guess I like the look of a uniform width and thickess, but since it IS comfy and I do LOVE the way it looks on my finger, we''re going to keep it as-is for now. I don''t have much experience with such fancy rings (the only other ring I have is my college ring) so I just didn''t know what to expect and rings I''ve seen online seem to be uniform... Also, I don''t want to give up my ring since I just got it!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/24/2010 7:56:22 PM
Author: ms.halo
I think this is also done to make rings more comfortable to wear.

Yes, I think you would not be happy with a ring that was uniform thickness and width all around. That is a lot of metal under the finger in the crease when you bend your finger, KWIM?

Your ring IS lovely, you should post a thread about it in Show Me The Ring!