Low set rings

[kuhan]

I really don''t like the rings that set the stone way up in the air... does anyone have any suggestions for simple, thin, low set solitaire or 3-stone rings? I''m really having a hard time finding these setting that are small and dainty - most low settings are chunky and have the stone in the band instead of just slightly above it...

Thanks

 

[rockupied]

That was some of my criteria, too (thin band, low set, simple). The shank is 2.5 mm, and my ring size is 5 3/4. It is a custom Vatche x-prong and am really pleased with it. Here are some pictures that I previously posted:

And here are the links to more specific information that I previously posted:

Vatche X-Prong: Asscher or Princess
Princess, Vatche X-Prong & the Middle Man

 

[tulipcloud]

i too didn''t like the higher set rings. I received a beautiful 3 stone e-ring. The ring isn''t very high profile at all and get lots of compliments all the time. It''s a platinum truffle setting...similar to the DVatche setting.

hope this helps

 

[Patty]

This shows the side profile of the Stuller Solstice. They make a low, medium and high head. This shows the low and medium heads.

 

[ame]

Mine is the low of that and I might go in and get the medium.

 

[MelissaSue]

Here is my e-ring... A Jaffe3 stone truffle-ish setting. I think its quite low..

I just love it.. and it really doesn''t get in the way or get caught on anything. I have a lot of little rings that are smaller that catch on things or scratch, but this is really easy to wear.

Melissa

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I agree that many rings set the stone way too high up in the air, makes the ring look awkward. That is why I like Tiffany''s setting, which sets the ring much lower down than most whilst still presenting the diamond above the ring. The Tiffany setting is dainty, elegant and graceful - but it is very costly, and you are paying a considerable premium for the name and the box. Also, I was recently informed by someone on here that a lower setting makes the diamond look slightly smaller than a higher setting.

 

[kuhan]

Thanks for the replies! I think that rockupied''s design height is more what I''m looking for - I''d like the bottom of the stone to be just above the skin/inside of the ring. Something like this is what I''m looking for (in terms of height) but with a much thinner band and without the casing going over the edge of the stone all the way around...

 

[rfath]

Interesting.. so are you looking for a pronged setting or something with a type of bezel, ideally? The picture that you linked showed a full bezel (the metal wrapping around the stone). There are variations on that theme... the half bezel, or partial bezel. I started a thread hunting for my perfect bezel setting - I wanted something very low and not chunky as well... but with the need for something very well-protected. Partial bezels leave part of the girdle uncovered, since you indicated that you didn't want the metal the whole way around....

The url to the thread is below (can't seem to get the code to work for a link...).



https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-favorite-bezel-settings.17823/



I fell in love with the Etienne Perret Low Halo setting. I LOVE it... the stone is just above my skin, and low enough that it doesn't snag anything or get banged into things (I'm a clutz!). The band is ~2mm and the craftsmanship is superb - the bezel looks a lot thicker in the pics than it does it real life - it really looks like a thin halo holding the stone in place.

http://www.weaselworks.net/~noah/gallery/albums/Proposal/Sideagain.sized.jpg

Just a shot in the dark... I know that the style of ring that I chose isn't a real popular one around here, but it's perfect for me

 

[Hest88]

Kuhan, the only thing to consider is that a low-set ring will keep a wedding ring from sitting flush against the e-ring. You may not mind the gap, but for some people it''s a big issue.