QUICK HELP!!! Diamonds in setting or NO diamonds? PIC

[cinnamonstick]

HELP!! I am stuck..... Need to remount my engagement round 1.10. I keep losing the side stones (invisible setting). NIGHTMARE!!! Too bad...setting was amazing! 2.35 in princess stones in the setting!!! Unfortunately, my ring is in the shop more than on my finger (NO JOKE!! Please STAY AWAY from invisible sets in rings). (!!)

I found this setting and like it a lot. Sorry for the first photo on the computer..... cant find a picture of the ring in all white gold and I would want it in all white gold, therefore, took a pic and shopped it to be B/W.

Diamonds or no diamonds? It does not need to look bridal. I plan to buy a 2ct sooner or later that I will set in a "bridal" setting. This will then serve as just a ring to wear on occasion or on my right hand.

The ct weight in the setting is .25 (not a lot). Part of the issue is I am not a fan of channel rounds (do not like the spaces that can be seen between and around the round diamonds). I prefer large pave if anything round in a band over round channel. BUT the diamonds do add a little flash and attention to the swirl, which is nice....of course- maybe it is simple in a plain way with out diamonds?? I am mixed up. It makes it also a bit hard bc I think the professional pics are "computer edited"? I do not think the real ring would quite look that...shiny? I am going to also attach a 'real photo" I found with diamonds (but in two tone...).I have not found any pictures of with out diamonds except off the main manf's web page.

I can not see the rings or try them on in person or I would know for sure!! Pic's are all I have to base my choice on.

Ring is 14mm by 14mm (wider ring)---a bit less than 3/4 inch
9.5 grams (heavy, I believe)

THANK YOU for any thoughts!

PIcs below are off the web and in TWO TONE (would not want two tone but does show off the beauty of the ring in two tone). I would just get all white gold...diamonds or no diamonds is the burning question....pics are to help you see the design and to picture in all white--with and with out side diamonds. In pic's below, the center diamond is a round 1ct as mine stone would resemble.

THANK YOU!

SORRY for my bad Photo Shop

 

[me&myboys]

No diamonds for me.

It looks a little more simple/more contemporary. I think (my opinion only) the diamonds date the style quite a bit.

Good luck

 

[cinnamonstick]

Thank you- WOW! That is what my friend said...diamonds looked "80s" (so does the two tone in a way--but mine will be all white gold).


Now I am more mixed up...I was going to do solid 100% --then diamonds was looking a bit better--now mixed up again! I don't want a ring that looks 80's. LOVE the 80s but....you know....

My mom (great jewelry gal) was thinking bc my stone is only a 1.10 center--that all the plain white gold may not give much of a "wow" to the ring. Nothing to bounce your eye around with.... I get what she is saying.
The lady at the ring shop (no rings at the shop to try on that were this style--just books /pictures) said with the diamonds is the "way to go"----"big seller"---more beauty".

If I could try them on -I WOULD KNOW. But I can't.

I love CHUNKY silver and big rings..so I don't mind just a plain band as long as my diamond looks nice. I felt the diamonds would actually "dress it up" which I was not sure I wanted (more elegant--where more "sporty" with out)


So confused.

Anybody wan't to chime in please???


Scream 80's with the diamonds?

I do like the ring- sure I want it--all white gold--but....those darn diamonds! With or without! Back and forth....

 

[kenny]

Get what you like.
What I like does not matter.

 

[cinnamonstick]

Get what you like.
What I like does not matter.

TOTALLY AGREE!! Just want to be sure at pushing 42 years old I still have a bit of style!!

If I could see them in person I know that it would be an easier decision. I am not good at visualizing.....

I think I am back to "no diamonds" which is totally strange for my taste. My motto is "go big or go home" when it comes to flashy jewelry!! It almost can't be too big or shiny! So go to plain...is odd for me. BUT --I almost liked the simplicity and thought the lines had great flow....of course, also like sparkle!

It crossed my mind that I could even have the swirl part sandblasted (brushed)/ or pounded at some point if I got bored with the plain setting to give it a different feel....

 

[MissGotRocks]

My vote is for no diamonds too. Looks contemporary and classy!

 

[me&myboys]

I absolutely get your "bling thing".....I wear 5 rings on the one finger!!!!!!

But. As I said. For me, the diamonds just SCREAM 80's....if that's the look you're going for....rock it!!!!

In this instance, I'd say less is more

In the end...wear what makes your heart AND head go "WOW!!!!"

Oh....and 1.10 ct is FAR from small!!!!

 

[arkieb1]

What did your old ring look like?

 

[cinnamonstick]

ARKIEB1

Current defective setting. 18k white, 2.35 cts. in setting cut princess and invisible set (nightmare), slight reverse barrel on sides (cant see very well in pics), with my 1.1 center. Had custom prongs
put on few years after buying the ring for a square-ish look (and chunkier). I like the heavy of the ring and thick prongs--not for everyone. I loved the "sparkle" and diamond total weight.

It may dwarf my center diamond a bit (thought would look nice with a 2ct)....just really always LOVED the setting. I smiled when I looked at it. Did not plan on getting a new setting..... untill....three loose stones this year alone ($170 a pop and 5 weeks) and now, one lost side stone. Forget it. Sat in drawer more than I wore it (truth). I was afraid to wear it!!! NO JOKE!!!

I debated rebuilding the SAME ring in channel set (would have two rows of diamonds vs three as now--no room for three rows) ---but decided a new look would be better to spend the money on IF I could find something I liked.

I looked at many local stores (live in city area)--and searched endless online--no luck except $10K settings (LOL).

Then thought maybe NO diamonds in setting (odd for me). That is how I found the brand above...instantly liked the ring with NO diamonds...but then did appreciate WHY the diamonds were in the swirl (and/or why it is also made in two tone gold)- to show off the design. BUT--not fan of two tone...AND the diamonds did totally change the look in my opinion.

If I could see them in person I would know instantly.....

 

[Enerchi]

No Diamonds - it looks much "sleeker" and more contemporary in the plain.

What if you had the one single bar in matte finish? or hammered finish to go w your wedding band? Just thinking of an alternative but not using diamonds. Are you able to photoshop that option?

 

[cinnamonstick]

MeandMy boys--THANK YOU! I hear your point! I love the ring in your profile pic! PRETTY! BLING!

Enerichi-
Good morning! Raining here on the east coast....for days now!!
I did consider eventually brushing (sandblasting) the swirl or pounding it for a bit of a different look to accent the swirl later if needed (sandblasting can be buffed out which is cool if I didn't like it but can scratch up a bit). That look may be better than diamonds. I think I am loving this idea if I get bored with the plain look. ALWAYS a fan of pounding...much prefer brushed yellow more than brushed white gold BUT it would accent the swirl nicely. Pounding also adds "sparkle" (and not worry about lost side diamonds). Yes, yes.....yes...... I will try to Photoshop it.....my skills are pretty scary and I can picture it--NICE look. Hummm......


(Picture) I just had my wedding band re-pounded heavier last week and shined. My wedding band is what I wear MOST of the time (to work, etc.) since I was "afraid" to wear the invisible setting except for "special dates" etc.



Thank you *all* for your thoughts!!!!

 

[Enerchi]

That would be neat to try out - have it highly polished at first and see if you love it as is, so no further adjustments need to be made. But if you decide that you want to tweak it, the option to have it sandblasted then re-polished if not to your liking, sounds like a great plan!!

I agree that would be a LOT of finger depth coverage to wear with your wb, but a lot of ladies do rock that look and it's amazing! Who knows, this could be something you love together!!

 

[cinnamonstick]

Enerichi-


Appreciate your time posting back and forth. I never wore my pounded band with my diamond settings (no room). Just wore the plain band when I didn't want to "dress up" or for like weekends when I was not going out. Routine was to come home from work-and switch my diamond rings (off with the diamond, on with the band) and any other rings/bracelets for household duties, cooking, dishes etc.
I was wearing my band nearly always bc of the problems with the invisible setting.

I would not be wearing the swirl setting with my pounded wedding band. It would be either or.

The swirl ring is 14. 5 mm tall and 14 mm east/west. I measured it out...looks like just under 3/4 inch. Takes up the finger.

 

[cinnamonstick]

Don't laugh

Ring with sandblasted (brushed) bar and a very sad attempt of a pounded bar.
I didn't get the art gene....


Of course, will keep it ultra shiny for now--and IF EVER....do a change to the swing over bar if I get bored.

Leaning toward my first choice which was no diamonds. Plan to order this week--once stone is set (and maybe even before) I will post a pic on my finger for any lurkers (or future buyers) who may wish to purchase a ring similar to this style to help with any decisions.

Feel free to keep voting! I also put in the option to change your vote if you are like me, and can't make up your mind! LOL

THANKS!

 

[cinnamonstick]

I absolutely get your "bling thing".....I wear 5 rings on the one finger!!!!!!

But. As I said. For me, the diamonds just SCREAM 80's....if that's the look you're going for....rock it!!!!

In this instance, I'd say less is more

In the end...wear what makes your heart AND head go "WOW!!!!"

Oh....and 1.10 ct is FAR from small!!!!

Question: In your opinion, NO diamonds--- still scream 80's....???

 

[endless_summer]

I really like the diamonds, though the all metal is more sleek, but also slightly heavier looking - I don't even know if it's an option, but perhaps instead of rounds, you could channel princesses in their place. I'm slightly biased since I have channel set princesses in my ring, but in this instance, it might give you the best of both worlds

 

[cinnamonstick]

Thank you for your thoughts Endless Summer. It did cross my mind to ask about getting princess vs round in the channel. Even pave' the round would be better for my personal taste (I like large pave).
I agree it is a concern with the sleek look (no diamonds) may look heavy. I do like heavier rings (I am not a dainty ring /jewelry gal). TOO heavy may dwarf my diamond or simply just take away from the diamonds beauty (lose the diamond I the ring). I believe this is why I believe the designer puts side diamonds on the swish-break up the metal a little and to have one's eye travel around the ring).


Found another picture yesterday searching...there are just not a lot of pictures out there of this ring. The new one is not quite as flattering and threw me for a loop. An issue for me is that all but one photo is "computer generated" or "enhanced". For me, this does not give a true image of the ring-- IMO. I guess my imagination is not that good. (last pic is the totally new view of the ring I just found). Looks different. It does not look as if the ring has three distinct layers (levels) as the other pics show, but studied and believe it does have "layers" or "levels" to the swirl which is what I LIKED a lot.

OH- I am not able to return the ring which is why this is more of a problem than normal.

Leaning toward no diamonds. Wish I could find a picture of it on a finger!

 

[endless_summer]

A picture on hand would be very helpful! If you can't return the ring, go with your gut. I like the way that the diamonds create more movement in the ring, for lack of better words - what you were describing, but if you are and have been leaning for all metal then go for it. Either way, it's unique & beautiful! Just make sure to let us know which you pick!!!

 

[cinnamonstick]

One more thought for any lurkers

I think I did narrow down to NO diamonds...THANK YOU!!! Needed to bounce the decision around for a bit and appreciate your votes and ideas. First gut said no diamonds--I am going to stick to that decision.

OK last opinion before I drop away and order the ring?

The PRONG question......4 prong as shown in all pictures .......or six prong?

I PREFER 4 prong.....but maybe 6 prong would fill up the center space better around the diamond ?? May change the "sleek look" though....more geometrical with 4 prongs (I like that).

I cant tell how high up the center setting/diamond head is either which is frustrating. Every picture looks a bit different. Some look near flush with the "swish" bar like it wraps around the actual center diamond .....some pictures not.

My diamond setting holds the diamond 5mm up from the top of the band. Not very high. Nice height for me being more active with my job/etc.

4 prong in pics ---shown with a 1 ct head, which is what my ring will come looking like unless I ask for a 6 prong.

I do like how a 4 prong looks more modern with this ring...and like how a 4 prong squares off a round. So maybe just stick with a "heavy four prong" which is what I am thinking....I will ask for a "heavy one" to be put on.

 

[cinnamonstick]

A picture on hand would be very helpful! If you can't return the ring, go with your gut. I like the way that the diamonds create more movement in the ring, for lack of better words - what you were describing, but if you are and have been leaning for all metal then go for it. Either way, it's unique & beautiful! Just make sure to let us know which you pick!!!

Endless, yes...I agree the diamonds in the band do create movement or flow...interest....break up the metal..... I agree. Still leaning toward no diamonds....I may call around and see if I can find a shop who has the ring in stock and can send me a pic on a finger (seriously). I called a few -everyone needs to order the ring (not in stock).

OH, THANK YOU for saying you liked it!





I will for SURE post a picture on my finger before my diamond is set and after. It may help someone else who is in a close situation.

 

[arkieb1]

Yep no diamonds definitely more modern looking.

It's such a pity you can't find someone that can do a good job and secure the stones in your previous ring. That is why I asked to see it, any suggestions anyone about fixing it or securing them down for good? I think if it was me I would be tempted to take the stones out and remake a new ring using them if you think you are never going to wear it again, I am all for repurposing items!!!!

 

[endless_summer]

A picture on hand would be very helpful! If you can't return the ring, go with your gut. I like the way that the diamonds create more movement in the ring, for lack of better words - what you were describing, but if you are and have been leaning for all metal then go for it. Either way, it's unique & beautiful! Just make sure to let us know which you pick!!!

Endless, yes...I agree the diamonds in the band do create movement or flow...interest....break up the metal..... I agree. Still leaning toward no diamonds....I may call around and see if I can find a shop who has the ring in stock and can send me a pic on a finger (seriously). I called a few -everyone needs to order the ring (not in stock).

OH, THANK YOU for saying you liked it!





I will for SURE post a picture on my finger before my diamond is set and after. It may help someone else who is in a close situation.

It will be awesome either way you go - the all metal is quite striking!!!

 

[cinnamonstick]

Yep no diamonds definitely more modern looking.

It's such a pity you can't find someone that can do a good job and secure the stones in your previous ring. That is why I asked to see it, any suggestions anyone about fixing it or securing them down for good? I think if it was me I would be tempted to take the stones out and remake a new ring using them if you think you are never going to wear it again, I am all for repurposing items!!!!

THANK YOU Arkieb1

Here is the short version (yah right, I am so long winded if you all have not figured that out by now). LOL

FAST FORWARD (forget history of setting problems before this summer)........ in July I began to shop around for someone local to fix my loose setting stones bc where I purchased the ring was over an hour drive one way. Two very good local jewelers in my area (DC) clearly said they would not even TOUCH the ring bc of the setting. They don't even sell them in the store any more!! "Worst mistake in jewelry history" I was told.

One local jeweler said he can "rebuild my ring" for $1,300 using my diamonds and "gold"--paying for work--channel set the diamonds --but would be two rows vs three (as now) bc the metal between would take up room. Not a bad price... I thought about it but then decided that I liked three rows and two would make me miss "my old ring". Too close to what I had--but not the same. To do three rows would need to be a wider ring which would not compliment my diamond.

I had another jeweler say for $6,000 (eek)(no joke- very high end)....he could pave where the invisible set was. I do like pave--but the price was crazy!! He also commented several of the princess stones were chipped and he could not use them if I had him rebuild my ring channel (oh--and that was also $7K bc needed several new diamonds). Yah--no thank you.

Then I went back and asked #1 if he could pave where the princess stones were-, liking that idea. He said -"no" --ring needs to be rebuilt--can't pop out side diamonds and put in pave (???) Strange...trust #2 more but no way for $6K and by then I was thinking why rebuild the nearly same ring?? Maybe time for a change????

Ok so around, and around, and around....lots of local shopping. No luck. A few more places said they would not touch the ring to fix it.....wow. Shocking!!! Pouring bad money after good--not smart. I figured why fix it...move on. Bad money after good....


So...I complained enough to the place that I bought the ring setting from (6 years ago--four loose stones and one lost stone during that time--and not worn a lot past three years)....and they agreed to give me "store credit" for PARTIAL what I paid (-30%) and I have to give them my setting. I asked about maybe trading the setting for a pave setting, they replied -- "if I wanted to lose more stones go with pave--they are chronically losing stones". I have a 2-3 pave rings--never lost stones, but, I do not wear them every day as I would an engagement ring. I finally decided to take the store credit and buy something else nice.....I am upset with the store so frankly, take my credit and run....forget them!!! ( I have not been given the credit yet---hour away--very hard to get there with two kids under 5 and working full time).... I have also asked the original store if they can "use my diamonds and gold" with my credit--and build a band that has rows of channel princess (not to hold my diamond but just a band to wear on my middle finger). They are "getting back to me" --it has been a week. NO reply. I am getting the run around. I will see what they say --I have a hunch they will want me to pay in for this--and I REFUSE.


That is my story. I did think about "rebuilding it". Just didn't want to get in to buying new princess diamonds if several were chipped as the one fella said...and maybe it just is time for a new look. I am getting a great price on this new setting so it is "easy come easy go". Just hope I am in love with it as much as I was with my old setting. I may not be...my old setting (to me) was breath taking with all the diamond sparkle in the setting. It cost me a lot .....good news, insurance will drop!!!! LOL. Oh well.....

On with the new....

 

[pregcurious]

Are you having this setting custom made for you? If so, I would see if they can do an integrated head instead of a peg head.

 

[cinnamonstick]

casted--made to order
Peg but said secure (asked)

Also said can't do princess in channel (too curved)--need to remake entire ring\
BUT COULD DO larger pave ...hummm????

So...huumm...sending pics on finger--will share (with and with out diamonds--channel though)


OK- every time I think I have the answer--then another option sneaks up!!

What do you gals think of PAVE vs channel?? Still dated?? To me--pave is less dated than channel--I like Pave (larger pave)....

BUT did like the sleek look...

AND what about the other lady who said PAVE fall out??? I dont want to deal with missing stones agian...but---a bit of sparkle (and pave is usually slightly whiter looking with the metal ....which may add interest)--like brushed-but not

Sometimes NO options is best.

 

[cinnamonstick]

Ring on finger..loooks different (this is yellow gold and with diamonds)

I would do white gold--all---and MAYBE pave--or most likely plain

 

[cinnamonstick]

rt rtt

 

[cinnamonstick]

larger--
PICTURES HELPED A LOT--plain for sure--unless I pave it

 

[cinnamonstick]

Far away diamonds...would PAVE if I did anything with diamonds....maybe update more...

Plain is nice...

Guy said SAME size diamond in each picture (1ct) --strange. Angle makes a diffefrence.

 

[motownmama]

I get a "vibe" that you would really like the diamonds - although not channel set. If so - you should go for it!!

What about gypsy set in a slightly scattered fashion?