Setting poll for AVR

[Acinom]

Thanks, Acinom! I really feel that the diamond needs side detail on the setting. When I go back to the first page of this thread and I have a picture with a gorgeous SS band, the e-ring just looks blah. So I know I need to do something. The VC adds side detail and that was one reason I really love it, but I am a little afraid it will make my stone sit too high.

your AVR cannot even like blah, even if you try really hard. I have the feeling a 'blingytaire' would be perfect for you and for your stone: a solitaire but with some visual candy that marks it as 'classic, always there, yet with a modern vibe': some melee in the gallery or shank and/or engraving, milgrain. I could be mistaken but a halo could be too much for you for everyday wear especially since you might combine it with a band.

The Van Craeynest seems to come back like a red thread and perhaps designing an indpired version with Caysie ensures that you she can add or leave out certain elements that make it the perfect ring for you.
Have you asked VC whether they made this ring with a large stone like yours?

 

[mrs-b]

Out of the 2 Caysie settings you posted, I vote for the top Caysie style - I think your ring would look killer in that. And I think the bottom of the two styles would be just too much.

What I've learnt in the (admittedly, 15 seconds!) time since I had my AVR set is that they DO look better with a little detail. The detail absolutely does not detract from the center stone - it brings it to the fore. I think the AVR's are an understated stone (until you see their light return - then LOOK OUT!), so it's possible to go too far - and to go too far quite easily. But some detail pointing towards their beauty makes them look even more beautiful and sort of gives them a 'seat' in which to sit.

Something I considered for some time was more complicated metalwork on the ring itself. Van Craeynest certainly fits that same brief. I'm not fond of the VC heads, tho, so would want a basket for the center stone, if I was considering that - and far finer prongs. Some people have commented that the prongs they do are more in keeping with the style of band. But I've always thought that the VC heads look more like an add on - and quite modern - compared to the detail on their shanks. I think the flow from shank to head could be much better - more seamless - but if that could be achieved, I think a VC setting would be perfect. For my money, I wouldn't want to go any larger than the stone you have if you were to do a VC setting - because a bigger stone would start to obscure too much of that gorgeous metal detailing. But I think your stone would be a lovely, elegant size for their settings, and I think your ring would then be more complete - a jewel, rather than a diamond in a holder (so to speak). This comes from someone who loves an unadorned solitaire - so I have NOTHING against plain solitaire settings. But with AVR's, I think it's a case of choosing the right setting for the stone, and a little old world metalsmithing would be killer.

Good luck!

 

[redroze1]

Have you seen this? It sounds like your issue is with wanting just a small amount of detail in the shank so to not compete with your avr; a shank that complements and is still visible with your sizable diamond. And an antique look. You seem to like the prongs on your solitaire.
https://www.singlestone.com/rings_c29/claire_p143/

 

[redroze1]

Tia view of it is just gorgeous. http://www.twistonline.com/product/sin14-sin-nl12x

It holds it's own against a bigger stone too.
https://www.singlestone.com/single-stone-collection_c2/claire_p144/