My new Asscher e-ring

[boo]

delurking to say that my fiance and I are really impressed with the amount of knowledge and interest there is on this forum for diamonds! We bought our asscher e-ring even before we knew what an asscher cut was, we just fell in love with the stone which was quite different from the usual RB solitaires. We''ve just received the ring, and wanted to get your opinions on it:

1. do you think the workmanship of the halo looks messy/uneven?
2. what type of pave/shared prong is the halo?
3. my ring size is 3.25, do you think this style of ring looks too bulky on my small hand?
4. should i change the setting by removing the halo, and having the asscher stone as a solitaire with the same half eternity band? ie like the Cartier 1922 setting. Someone else on this forum has a setting like that which is also very pretty!

I really like this style of ring, which is quite old school classic and elegant, slightly art deco. But having second thoughts, and not sure if something more simple would be more suitable and less ''bling''.

Thank you for any comments!

 

[strmrdr]

From the picture the halo looks pretty good quality wise but its not 100% clear.
I think the diamonds in the halo are on the large side which gives it the jumbled look.
Id prefere them about 1/2 that size.

overall I like it.

 

[bluedawg]

Date: 5/31/2005 9:44:57 AM
Author:boo


1. do you think the workmanship of the halo looks messy/uneven?
2. what type of pave/shared prong is the halo?
3. my ring size is 3.25, do you think this style of ring looks too bulky on my small hand?
4. should i change the setting by removing the halo, and having the asscher stone as a solitaire with the same half eternity band? ie like the Cartier 1922 setting. Someone else on this forum has a setting like that which is also very pretty!

Welcome to Pricescope, Boo.

I think your ring is very pretty.
I am sure that most of us would like to see more pics of this setting! What about a full hand shot so we can see the scale of the setting to your whole hand? It''s hard to answer your Q3 without that, since the shot you posted is cropped and magnified.

Do you know any specs on your asscher? Is the setting a custom piece?

Have you ever seen this pic of Beansy''s asscher? I really like this style. However, your ring is beautiful. Unless you''re unhappy with the overall look I wouldn''t change it. To me, the setting looks very well-made, but my knowledge of the halo styles is limited. I''m sure someone else will come along soon to help you with your questions.

 

[boo]

Hello,
these are the specs (GIA)

1.01 ct
Square Emerald Cut
E VVS1
Depth 72%
Table 59%
Girdle thin to slightly thick
Culet none
Polish Gd
Symm Gd
Fluor None

I will try to send you more photos. The quality of my photos isn''t very good. The ring looks more sparkly and bright in real life.
Yes! Beansy''s ring is exactly the alternative setting that I am considering.

Thanks for your replies!

 

[Nicrez]

Hey Boo! Welcome to PS!

Personally I like a seamless halo around a stone that shows no gap between. Also, the style of micropave, as Storm mentioned is popular, but not the only way to go.

Believe it or not, micropave includes SMALLER diamonds, but will cost more than regular pave due to the very detailed setting of such small stones, so labor costs more than diamonds at that point. It has a more delicate look, but again it all depends on taste.

I think your ring is lovely as it is, and I would not change it if I was you. You fell in love with it for a reason, so trust your own instinct. If your instinct says change, then do your homework... Good luck and show us more picures of the ring, so we can see the detail! It does look lovely and I don''t think it''s too much for your finger at all. I like the classic art deco look...

 

[belle]

hey boo! glad you decided to delurk and show us your ring!

it''s beautiful! i hope you will post more pics!

 

[Kaleigh]

Hi Boo,
Wecome to PS. I agree with the others. Your ring is very pretty, but think it would look even better with a smaller micro pave. It''s a beautiful stone, I looove asschers. It''s your ring so you have to be happy with it. It''s very pretty just the way it is.

 

[boo]

oops! Forgot to say that the pave stones in the band are 3-4 pointers each i think, and the ones in the halo are smaller than that, but I don''t know what size. They are RB stones, D/E/F colour and of similar clarity. The overall carat weight was listed as 2.4 cts, but i think this might be a mistake as the original piece we looked at was 1.96 ct in total only. What is considered a custom setting? We found this piece in the store, and they made a new piece for us that is supposed to be exactly the same. The metal bits of the pave/prongs seem a little uneven to me, not obvious from afar, but only on close inspection. I''m not sure if that is due to a workmanship problem.

 

[boo]

More pics! Slightly bigger but I think the resolution is not as good......

 

[boo]

And........ one more!

 

[valeria101]

The diamond and ring design are both wonderful, IMO and surely work well on your hand.

The pave could have been tighter - not ust smaller diamonds (if even) but there is no need to clamp them in those relatively large beads of metal. This was done differently than what I would have in mind thinking "pave".

 

[curlygirl]

Boo, I think your ring is beautiful and looks wonderful on your hand. I love the halo but agree that the stones may be a little big and set with too much "metal" showing rather than the tighter pave that most people are used to seeing. But I really think that''s a personal thing and if you love it, you shouldn''t change it. You have a gorgeous stone and a great setting. I think it''s just lovely. Good luck and let us know what you decide to do!

 

[mrssalvo]

HI boo and welcome.

I really like your ring. I agree with Nicrez though that I would prefer the pave halo to be smaller and am not a big fan of the gap but that's totally a personal preference. I also think the smaller halo makes the stone look bigger. Here is an example: this is a picture of Firegoddess' 1st attempt at a new setting.

Ok, here's her new setting with a smaller pave halo

In my opinion her stone pops more and looks bigger in the 2nd setting.
to answer you question about the uneven prongs i have been told that the diamonds are all the same weight but not the same size. the prongs are placed to hold the diamonds in and may not be perfectly even. Here is a pic I found of an eternity band that is very well made but as you can see the prongs aren't "perfect."

all that to say you have to be 100% happy with your ring. I think your ring looks very nice and has captured the antique look very well and is unique. I definitely don't think it's too much "bling" i didn't even know there was such a thing

 

[soulsis]

I think it''s beautiful. I especially love it for the reason that some others said they didn''t (not so much like..just not preferred). It doesn''t look like everyone else''s ring. It is different and different is always GOOD!! I''d say keep it. I ain''t ever seen another like it

 

[soulsis]

I think it''s beautiful. I especially love it for the reason that some others said they didn''t (not so much like..just not preferred). It doesn''t look like everyone else''s ring. It is different and different is always GOOD!! I''d say keep it. I ain''t ever seen another like it

 

[boo]

Ha ha! My fiancé and I had this conversation in the shop about was there such a thing as too much bling or too much diamond!

I quite like the gap between the stone and the halo, the halo accentuates the centre stone. I tend to feel that having them flush is kind of cheating, as though I were trying to make the stone look larger than it actually is. I never considered smaller stones ……..would that mean that there would be more than 1 row of diamonds in the halo? Or still 1 row but thinner? At the moment, the halo width is 1mm, the band width is 2mm. The centre stone width is about 5.6mm.

Do you know if it is possible to set the same size stones with less metal? I wasn’t sure if they were necessary to hold the diamonds in place or if it was a workmanship issue. Mrssalvo: I agree that if the diamonds were not the same shape, maybe the prongs would not be ‘perfectly’ identical?

Just a note: my halo is set as what I think is called ‘fishtail pave’. So the side view isn’t plain metal and there isn’t a metal milgrain border around the halo (as compared to Firegoddess’ ring). We preferred this type of pave, although I agree that if the pave was set within a metal border, it might look sleeker especially from the side view. Haven’t got a photo of my side view yet I’m afraid!

Btw, thanks for the support! I feel like I'm my worst enemy, and I'm just second guessing myself. I don't know if I should a) leave things as they are, b) make corrections to the halo (is there anything to 'correct'), or c) just change the setting entirely to Beansy's type of setting (thanks Beansy for the inspiration!).

 

[mrssalvo]

here's a pic of Cutegirls's ring that has the gap i must find out what that's called, airplane, air something..

)

anyway, it's still only one row of pave, just smaller.

 

[Mara]

First off, I think the ring is very beautiful and the Asscher looks stunning...however I think on the hand it does kind of lose something. I think it may be the gap between the halo and the stone and also as the others mentioned the halo stones look too big for the stone size. I would say about 1/2 that size as well. If they are 2 pointers then do 1 pointers or maybe even .008''s or something. The stone being a 1c and an Asscher, you don''t want to overwhelm it or take away from the beautiful Asscher pattern!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/31/2005 11:39:26 AM
Author: boo


At the moment, the halo width is 1mm, the band width is 2mm. The centre stone width is about 5.6mm.

Do you know if it is possible to set the same size stones with less metal? I wasn’t sure if they were necessary to hold the diamonds in place or if it was a workmanship issue.

1mm is about as small as they get - the diamonds should be about 1 point as is...

It sounds like this is a case of the photo not showing the real size of things well: perhaps the relative size of the diamond frame to center stone should be less, but in real terms that frame could hardly go smaller. The pear and the round brilliant rings have larger diamonds set, and the diamond frames in either are made in a different way than yours (and diffeerent from one another too). The round ring is covered with pave on three-sides, not just one. So... yes, it is a workmanship issue.

As fars as I can tell...

 

[bluedawg]

Thanks for sharing more pics and info.
You''ve had a lot of advice. What are you feelings after all of the various opinions?

Have you thought about what kind (if any) of wedding band you''d want? Would it fit under your setting? That might factor in...

 

[JessesGrl]

My ring is similiar, also and asscher but the halo is made up of smaller bead set diamonds...just to give you and idea I think they are 1 or 1.5 points each

 

[bluedawg]

JessesGrl, your setting is so pretty. Thanks for adding yours.

Boo, here is a thread with some more pics of the "boxster" style. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-boxster-rings.26941/page-2

 

[boo]

Bluedawg: Not sure what my feelings are yet. The 2 main things people have brought up are 1) the gap between the halo and stone 2) size of the halo stones. I think that I still like the gap as it highlights the asscher more. The RB stones provide a nice sparkly contrast to the asscher''s ''deep pool of light'' as well. With regard to smaller stones in the halo, will that not make the metal prongs seem even larger and more messy?

I guess my main reservations now are: Because the halo metal bits look a bit uneven and not perfect to me, iis the workmanship of the prongs/halo/micropave (whatever it''s called) something to be concerned about? Would a simpler setting without a halo just be easier to deal with?

The wedding band issue is also something I''ve been thinking about. I won''t wear my e-ring at work, and will only wear a wedding band, which I am hoping to have diamonds in platinum in some form or other. However, there is clearly no way I can wear the wedding band together with the e-ring.......I don''t think there is enough space on my finger! So my e-ring will have to go on my right hand i suppose. Or on my left middle finger? Of course, changing the e-ring setting to Beansy''s type will be a lot easier to wear a wedding band with.

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments! It''s so helpful to be able to bounce off ideas with people who are similarly ''obsessive'' about diamond rings!

 

[MrsFrk]

The center stone is absolutely stunning. I like the gap, but I think that the metal surrounding the pave is a little blobby. However, photos of jewelry can be cruel, so it may look just fine in person.

 

[boo]

Wanted to say, Jessesgrl and Mrssalvo: you have such gorgeous rings!

Bluedawg, thanks for posting that link to the boxter thread! This one is similar to mine (posted by chellebelle), but a different sort of pave in the halo. Do you think this is nicer than my fishtail pave? And less metal looking?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/31/2005 4:58:38 PM
Author: boo

I guess my main reservations now are: Because the halo metal bits look a bit uneven and not perfect to me, iis the workmanship of the prongs/halo/micropave (whatever it''s called) something to be concerned about?

Can you compare these details between your ring and others at jewelry shops in town ? Comparing pictures helps, but only up to a point...

 

[bluedawg]

I am sure that Ritani ring (with the Princess) is very pretty in "person." I tried on the Endless Love micropave set (not with the halo-- just for a plain round diamond) and it is so, so, so delicate! The photos don''t accurately convey just how dainty it is.

About the wedding band issue... if the head of your ring is high enough, you might be able to slide a band underneath. FireGoddess (her pear/halo set is posted above) has such a set and it is so lovely!

Here are two pics:

 

[AndyRosse]

Well I think it''s just drop dead gorgeous, and you wouldn''t be able to pry that thing off my finger for anything!!

 

[FireGoddess]

boo,

i do like your ring and the art deco nature of the design. the overall look of the ring is very, very pretty. i do think, imo, that the halo seems a little wide for the stone, and that the prong work on the halo is more prominent than the stones. if the halo really is only 1 mm wide, then i don''t know how much smaller you can go, and it may seem wider than that because of the preponderance of metal showing. i love the ritani princess that was posted and it seems the difference is in the prominence of the prongs in the halo, as well as the polished metal edges of the halo.

as others have asked, do you want to wear a w-band with this ring? is your ring high enough right now to do that? others have already posted some relevant pics of my rings so i won''t repeat those. i think where you go from here (if anywhere) depends on what you want to do about the w-band.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/31/2005 4:58:38 PM
Author: boo

I think that I still like the gap as it highlights the asscher more.

Here''s one with a square-ish diamond and gap...

At Fay Cullen

The Old Mine cut is about 1 carat, and the small diamonds 1.7pts each, on average (22 pieces, .41cts total).

I can''t see the band of your ring very well in the pictures, but the small diamonds appear as if burnished into the band, not pave. The metal beads were not carved out of the metal remaining between the diamonds. On the halo, some such adjustment appears to have been made, but only partial (the beads are rounded somewhat, but still quite large). As if the job was left half way done... It may be a new style, no one says there must be small metal beads there - there is no standard. Just your expectations about the look of the finished piece.