Help me finalize my setting design!!!

[Odilia]

Well, I have GOT to finish my re-set, and I need your help in finalizing my design. After exploring various possibilities, I am leaning very strongly toward a ring where my engagement diamond is flanked by two side rounds on each side, despite this style being the “loser” in my poll !

I am assuming that it lost the poll because folks like 3-stones better, and hopefully not because they dislike two side rounds. Please do give me feedback if you don’t think this is a good style. I don’t think I want eternity for various reasons. I tried on 3-stones, and they are just not me. I like more stones to provide finger coverage from the top down, and smaller stones so they still allow the center stone to really POP. I thought about baguettes, but decided to steer away from them as well. So the two side rounds seems the best in the end.

I will probably have to go custom, because I can never find just exactly the right design, so here is where you can help me. I will post some pictures of rings I have seen in stores, and then I need help with design details, such as the size of the side stones, the profile, prongs, etc… One key question is size of the side stones: what is the best proportion with my stone? What''s the smallest I can go to still allow the center stone to take center stage, without them being too small for side stones? My diamond is ~1.1 ct.

The first picture, shown below, is a Scott Kay design. For purposes of this discussion, we''ll call it the Scott Kay crown.
For review for those who are unfamiliar with my situation:
My diamond is a 1.097ct ASG Ideal 0 RB, H SI1. (6.68 – 6.72 mm) I want something very classic and timeless; nothing very modern or trendy. But, while classic, I like a bit of uniqueness, rather than too common. I like for the whole ring to flow well, a work of art, rather than awkward transitions from shank to head and so on.
Smooth shank rather than carved. Not eternity due to sizing issues. “Elegant, clean lines, that never go out of style.” “classy, delicate look.” “I love attention to detail, clean lines and also, some FRU-FRU on a smaller scale! rather than BIG, BOLD and BANG” “allow the center stone to take center stage while still providing finger cover.”

Incidentally, since I have another wedding set, this ring will probably often be worn alone on the right hand. Thus it does not have to match a wedding ring. I plan to get a hinged shank, since no ring will really fit my right hand properly (knuckle is more than a ring size larger than ring part of finger), and this way it will also fit my left hand when I want to wear it there. With the hinged shank, it can be size 5. (w/o hinge, it would have to be about size 6.5, and thus will flop terribly on right hand, and be way too big for left hand).

 

[Odilia]

This next picture is also a Scott Kay. We''ll call this the Scott Kay ribbon. I don''t like the profile on this one as much as the previous (wish I had better pictures; they are much prettier in person!), but this one (at least at the store) had smaller side stones, and I think I liked that proportion better from the top-down. I think they were 15 points, where the "crown" might have been more like 20 points. (Going by distant memory here.)

 

[Odilia]

This next one is, I think, identical to the previous Scott Kay ribbon. Just a slightly different view I guess.

 

[Odilia]

This next ring is one I tried on at a jewelry store. This one is pretty basic. Just thought I’d throw it in. We’ll call it: “Basic 5 stone.”

 

[Odilia]

This one is an A Jaffe. It is similar to the Scott Kay Crown, but slightly different. Actually, I tried on an A Jaffe at a store, similar to this, but different. I haven’t been able to find a good photo of it, but came up with this one.

 

[Odilia]

Another, slightly different A Jaffe. Neither of these is exactly like the one I tried on. But I think these two have different transitions from the last diamond to the shank. Someone pointed out that there could be problems with this one, since it just has the one prong at the end? Any feedback?

 

[Sundial]

Those are both pretty, but I really prefer the first one. As you pointed out the side profile on the second one isn't as nice. My three stone ring has a 1.24 carat center stone with .50 sidestones, so I am thinking with two sidestones on each side you would want to go about .20 carats per stone. Just my thoughts.

Edited to add: You posted a couple of more choices while I was writing, but I still like the first one best.

 

[Odilia]

This was the top-down view of the A Jaffe I tried on. Unfortunately it doesn''t do it justice at all ! I have to try to see this one again. From the top down, I think the diamonds were a bit larger than I''d like. Also there was some metal showing around the diamonds from top-down - hard to explain but you can sort of see it here. I didn''t like that. But the side view was neat - it figures that''s what I don''t have a picture of! Anyway, I will continue trying to get better pictures, but in the meantime, all feedback is welcome and appreciated!!!! What size side stones would you get? I think I like the shared prongs, like the Scott Kay crown and these A Jaffe''s, but how would you make the transition from the last diamond to the shank? (I think the transition on the live A Jaffe was neat; again, wish I had a good picture.) What kind of profile do you like? I do like how you can see the whole side of the diamond on the SK crown and A Jaffe ones.

 

[mrssalvo]

I like the first one best two. I like the flowy feeling of the sideview..

 

[Odilia]

oops! Didn''t know that last picture was so big. I''ll try to post it again, smaller. But it reminded me, would you have slightly graduated stones, or equal size? The Scott Kay ribbon I believe are equal, on the A Jaffe shown here, they are slightly graduated. Don''t know the exact size of the stones. I think the Scott Kay crown might be graduated as well.

 

[KristyDarling]

Hands down, I like the first AJaffe you posted! I like the little surprise diamond and how the shank flows smoothly from the last diamond on both sides. I also think the side profile is beautiful. Personally, I don''t like rings with the little "rib" separating the last diamond form the shank.

 

[KristyDarling]

ETA I also like the prongs on the first AJaffe better. My second fave is the first Scott Kay. (non-ribbon)

As for whether or not to graduate, I could go either way. I'd probably lean toward graduating though since the "arch" of the stone setting sort of lends itself to that. More flow!

 

[Odilia]

Thanks for the feedback, Sundial and mrssalvo! It made more questions pop into my head. The Scott Kay (and actually the A Jaffe which is very similar in concept) both have a surprise diamond. Would you keep the surprise diamond? If so, do you think it matters how big it is? It was smaller on the A Jaffe, which I kind of liked because on the Scott Kay, I think the diamond could sit a bit lower if the SD were smaller. Would you put a colored diamond into it (like a light blue or pale pink?), or just stick with all white??

 

[mrssalvo]

I personally am not a fan of the surprise diamond on a ring for me so I wouldn''t keep it..

 

[Odilia]

Date: 7/13/2006 10:00:39 AM
Author: KristyDarling
Hands down, I like the first AJaffe you posted! I like the little surprise diamond and how the shank flows smoothly from the last diamond on both sides. I also think the side profile is beautiful. Personally, I don''t like rings with the little ''rib'' separating the last diamond form the shank.

Thanks! When you say, you like the little surprise diamond, do you mean, better than the relatively larger one on the Scott Kay, or just in general? And thanks for the feedback on the ''rib''!

{{{ I also like the prongs on the first AJaffe better. }}}}

When you say "better" do you mean ''better than the second A Jaffe'' or ''better than the first Scott Kay''?

 

[KristyDarling]

I like the prongs on the first A Jaffe better than the prongs on the first Scott Kay. Although the SK prongs are really nice too. I just feel like the A Jaffe prongs are slighty curvier looking, which I like. And I don''t have a preference as to surprise diamond size, as long as the way it''s set isn''t too bulky looking with too much metal...it has to be subtle. I can''t really tell from these pics which surprise diamond (Scott Kay vs Jaffe) is more delicate.

 

[Odilia]

Date: 7/13/2006 10:13:22 AM
Author: KristyDarling
And I don''t have a preference as to surprise diamond size, as long as the way it''s set isn''t too bulky looking with too much metal...it has to be subtle. I can''t really tell from these pics which surprise diamond (Scott Kay vs Jaffe) is more delicate.

Good point! In person, at least, I thought the A Jaffe SD was more delicate. There''s nothing terribly wrong with the Scott Kay SD (it kinda holds the design together, if you know what I mean - it''s a focal point) but I think the size of it causes the diamond (center stone) to sit higher than it would need to, and it probably could be more delicate and inconspicuous. On the A Jaffe (in person), it was smaller, just enough to be the focal point again, without taking up too much room or attention.

That will be another advantage of going custom, is I can have them make it as delicate as possible.

 

[Odilia]

Here is another view of the Scott Kay.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I like the first one the best as well.

 

[Odilia]

Here''s the first Scott Kay again, bigger hopefully. For those of you who like this one the best, is there anything you would change about it???

(Incidentally, the wedding ring shown is irrelevant.)

 

[KristyDarling]

Actually, OFG, now that you have more views of the SK, I''m leaning more toward that one. Mainly because the prongs look more delicate than the A Jaffe.

And I can see that the transition between the last diamond and the shank is smoother and more seamless than I first thought.

 

[Odilia]

Thanks, KristyDarling! I was hoping with more pictures it would give a better idea.

I also found two more views of A Jaffe versions. I thought these two together kind of give a good comparison of different ways of doing that profile. The top one fans out a little more, and the bottom one less. I don't like the surprise diamond in the second one, so pretend it's not there!! Any feedback on the profile???? Please?

(also ignore the red scribble!)

 

[pricescope]

Remember old-fashioned girl, you asked for any opinion

...

 

[Gypsy]

I like the scott kay crown. And umm... I actually love it with the color Irina added to it. But even without I think it''s the most elegant of them all.

 

[sanfranciscoellen]

I think my favorite is the A. Jaffe. The side profile of the prongs looks more flowy and natural to me. The Scott Kay seems a little "ribby" if that is a word

 

[Kim N]

OFG, I vote for the first Scott Kay, no contest. I think its profile is much prettier than the similar A. Jaffe. I love the surprise diamonds. I actually also love it with the rubies that Irina added.

 

[ladykemma]

look at my avatar. from left to right
.20 .30 1.25 .30 .20

i think nice proportions

i like all your settings picked out and yes I think you won''t get tired of it.

 

[Odilia]

Date: 7/13/2006 1:10:27 PM
Author: Pricescope
Remember old-fashioned girl, you asked for any opinion

...

Wow, that is neat to see it with color! I had thought about color, and it is still not out of the question - especially at least for the surprise diamond. Actually, ruby is my birthstone, but, due to my coloring or whatever, I lean toward other colors, usually cooler colors, and for diamonds, either pale pink or pale blue. I wish I were good at photoshop like that!! Thanks!

 

[Odilia]

Date: 7/13/2006 1:52:00 PM
Author: wallermama
I think my favorite is the A. Jaffe. The side profile of the prongs looks more flowy and natural to me. The Scott Kay seems a little ''ribby'' if that is a word

Which A. Jaffe? There were several different ones. And do both Scott Kays seem ''ribby'' - the one with the ''ribbon'' as I called it only, or the ''crown'' one too? Thanks!

 

[Odilia]

Date: 7/13/2006 2:55:33 PM
Author: ladykemma
look at my avatar. from left to right
.20 .30 1.25 .30 .20

i think nice proportions
i like all your settings picked out and yes I think you won''t get tired of it.

Thanks! That is very helpful. Are there any close-ups of your ring on PS? It is beautiful, and it''s good to hear someone say I won''t get tired of this look. That''s what I want is something classic, that I will never tire of or regret!

oh, another question: since your center stone is a pear, what is the length?