Side stones = too much goin'' on?

[Julian]

Hi!

So I'm looking at settings for my 3.01 carat RB.

My question is -- would baguettes on the sides (say .2-.5 carats each) make the solitaire look smaller or larger? Also, my e-ring size is 4.

I'm also wary of taking the drama away from the center stone. It almost seems a shame to put anything next to it, the RB is so stunning. Will I get tired of looking at it? Will it look like an anniversary ring?

What do you think? You fine folk have more diamond expertise than I do. Please chime in.

I've had some wax castings made and I still can't decide!

 

[pearcrazy]

I'm just wondering with such a large stone and such a small finger, how much of the sidestones would show anyway since the head to hold such a large diamond would take up a large portion of the band.

 

[pearcrazy]

Check out this thread to see what I mean. See how wide the ring with the baguettes looks?

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/e-ring-proportions-and-design-contd.18644/

 

[Jennifer5973]

Hi! Wow--a 3.01 on a size 4 finger.

Here is my 3.01 stone with 3, 20-pointers on each side. As much as I love my setting, I know the stone would "pop" more if it was alone. The setting has sentimental value so I won't change it. I have a 7.5 finger--much larger...lucky gal with a 4! It will look huge.

Look at different types of settings and try as many style son as you can...my gut tells me that on a size 4 finger, a simple band will make that stone look like a planet!

(although I have always liked the sliver/baguette look also)

Congrats!

 

[Julian]

Hi PearLover,

You are so right.

The baguettes would need to be petite and at a steep angle, since my finger is indeed small. Darn these childish hands!

But while I think there is room for some more "dazzle" -- I'm mostly worried about cluttering up something I may not need to embellish.

Then again, so many rings on here are ornate and intricate and compliment the center stone so well, without taking away any drama.

PS) Jennifer, your ring is stunning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lovely!

Are you sure your stone would "pop" more in a simpler setting? When I see your setting I would think your center stone is so wonderfully complemented & showcased to its glory. Gorgeous ring!

Also -- I saw a similar size stone in a platinum setting with trillions on the side. It actually made the stone look larger. Whew!

 

[Julian]

I suppose one also has to consider what wedding band will best complement the e-ring.

I'm leaning toward the Tiffany design (perhaps 2-3 carats worth of round brilliants) to go with my simple platinum solitaire.

If I did get baguettes, I'm not sure what style of wedding band to seek. My biggest concern being a cluttery, busy look!

 

[lauratabs]

I know people say diamonds can never be too big, but girl, if you don't want to look gaudy, then NO WAY! No side stones. Your finger is too small, and there is no need to add ANY more to that diamond. Even if your finger was a 10, side stones would be gaudy. Take a lesson from the other poster's ring,, More is absolutely less in this situation! Simplicity is the best choice.

 

[Julian]

You have a point.

I do have a teeny weeny finger.

It's definitely not my goal to construct a gaudy ring fit for the Bride of Frankenstein. It's aliiiiiive!

However, side stones on other posters' rings seem so very lovely! It's hard to say no to a little more sparkle!

But alas...I suppose I'm answering my own question -- I think I'll stay with the solitaire and get a dazzling wedding band to complement it. The solitaire seems to look best with larger RBs in a wedding band. It carries larger sized diamonds off very well. Funny, because the wedding bands with smaller diamonds made my larger solitaire look strangely out-of-proportion.

Plus, it looks clean and classic, not vulgar. Whew!

Thanks to all for your witty and informative posts! Keep 'em coming!

 

[Jennifer5973]

----------------
On 9/21/2004 9:09:09 PM lauratabs wrote:

I know people say diamonds can never be too big, but girl, if you don't want to look gaudy, then NO WAY! No side stones. Your finger is too small, and there is no need to add ANY more to that diamond. Even if your finger was a 10, side stones would be gaudy. Take a lesson from the other poster's ring,, More is absolutely less in this situation! Simplicity is the best choice.

----------------

I shared my ring with this poster in the spirit of showing an example, an available option, with regard to side stones. I also shared my opinion that with such a small finger, she should experiment with how much side "bling" would suffice for her personal preferences.

While opinions vary and the very nature of Pricescope is to openly share ideas and information, your rude insult of my ring is certainly not in the spirit of the forum. While I might disagree with someone else's idea of what is "ideal" for her, I would never insult her taste, especially about a diamond ring described as "sentimental" to boot.

I've attached another picture of my horrible ring and --egads!--the matching 3.8 ct eternity band...yes--what an eyesore indeed! I hope your retinas can take it.

 

[reena]

lauratabs, let me be the second to say it:

YOU.

ARE.

RUDE.

i've seen your rude posts in the past and have tried to hold my tongue/give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is just too much. IMO, either get that enormous chip off of your shoulder or get out.

edited to add: jennifer, i would DIE for your gorgeous ring (and she would too, which is why she said it).

 

[lauratabs]

If you read the poster's last response to ME, she agreed with me, stating I have a point. Seeing your matching band doesn't change my opinion at ALL. She asked for my opinion and I gave it to her. You even implied in your own posting that if it were not so sentimental you would change the setting as well, so why come down so hard on me? IN MY OPINION, it's too much bling for one ring. Has nothing to do with jealousy. and Reena, what postings are you referring to as RUDE, because I don't feel I have been rude to anyone, just honest.

 

[reena]

(1) "I think you should grow up as well. How dare you sit there and wine about your six thousand dollar ring because it wasn't marked up thousands of dollars for some stupid name. If he is as good of a man as you say, you should thank God everyday to have found someone like him, rather than cry over some stupid Tacori mark up. He probably spent a lot of time trying to find something that would please you and all you can do is scrutinize everything about it. I think HE should analyze your reaction to the ring and re-analyze why he gave it to you in the first place. Hope this helps!"


(2) Sounds like you've got a winner. . . . for this peticular situation I say why not trade your ring for some thing, so-called, "bigger and better". If he was selfish enough to not feel like putting the effort into making that moment special and unforgettable, then there's no reason you can't be just as selfish by trading up for all the wrong reasons! At least you are both on the same track.

(3) maybe I was upset at the time, but I meant everything I said. YOU may beleive I was being rude, but this girl needed a wake up call, which obviously after reading her last post, she got. Many others agreed with me, so I'm sorry if you didn't. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.


(4) Even if your finger was a 10, side stones would be gaudy. Take a lesson from the other poster's ring,, More is absolutely less in this situation!

4 out of 17 total posts.

 

[lauratabs]

I don't see your point. These were all posted, with the exception of today's post about sidestones, to people who were acting childish, selfish, and ridiculous. Today, I was simply giving her my opinion.

 

[Jennifer5973]

There are ways to say things nicely, respectfully, kindly, and ways to say things rudely. Period.

On a size 4 finger, less might definitely be more--that was my point. I don't care what I wrote, for you to write the poster should "Take a lesson " from my ring as an example of what not to do--I would never write that about someone...EVER, even if I thought it, whether the orignal poster agreed with me or not.

You could have shared your honest opinion with the poster without insulting me. Normally I could care less, but this post just got on my last nerve today and I didn't feel like sitting idly by as I was blatantly insulted.

As for the original question of this thread, let's use some common sense, shall we? ANY side stones on ANY size ring for ANY size diamond will detract somewhat from the center stone. Boy, that makes a LOT of rings bad, bad, bad...

 

[reena]

----------------
On 9/21/2004 10:04:37 PM lauratabs wrote:

These were all posted, with the exception of today's post about sidestones, to people who were acting childish, selfish, and ridiculous.----------------

5 out of 18, you're on a roll.

seriously, LT, i don't mean to get on your case, but what jennifer said is 100% right--it's not what you say, it's how you say it. the posts i quoted from above were in response to people who were being honest about their feelings and seeking advice. it's fine if you disagree with their viewpoints, but we're all adults here--it's one thing to offer your opinion in a diplomatic fashion, it's quite another to lash out and attack someone. which brings me back to an honest question: why the chip on your shoulder?

nobody here has been mean to you, at least not that i've seen.

 

[lauratabs]

Jennifer,why stoop my so-called-level, and insult the original posters common-sense? Doesn't that make us one in the same?

 

[lauratabs]

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as being rude, or that I have a chip on my shoulder. IF you go back and look at those posts, I'm not the only one who wrote those things, and the original poster actually THANKED us for being hard on her because she needed a wake up call. I guess I could tone it down a little, but I can't stop being honest. My posts are not written so someone will take offense, they are wake up calls.

 

[Jennifer5973]

Going against my better judgement, I'll respond to your faulty logic. The point wasn't whether sidestones detract but how much;, hence, the examples of the baguette style and my RB side stone style. She knows that--she wants to gauge what might work, if anything on the sides.

Despite my better sensibilities, I am still amazed at your crass response. You didn't have to say anything about my ring or make a judgement about it. No one asked for your opinion on my ring. The photo was presented for educational/illustrative purposes only. You could have made your point without insulting me.

You can spin all you want--and I know spin better than anybody--I do it all day long for a Fortune 25 company--but you were unnecessarily rude and insulting. Sometimes, there is a bottomline you just can't ignore and this is one of those times, dearie.

 

[pearcrazy]

Julian

I think your solitare with a diamond eternity band will be beautiful. You always have the option to go to a different setting later if you just aren't satisfied with the look. Better to go simple now and get fancier later than go ahead and do it and then think it looks too busy after you've already spent the money.

 

[lauratabs]

The bottom line is you have your opinion, and I have mine. And we are both entitled to that, sweetie.

 

[ChooChoo]

Julian,

I, too, don't like the look of plain solitaires, but I agree that other diamonds with a 3-carat center will be too much - so I propose a compromise: a thin platinum band with engraving. It won't be plain and generic looking, but certainly won't detract from the center either.

 

[Jennifer5973]

----------------
On 9/21/2004 10:31:44 PM lauratabs wrote:

The bottom line is you have your opinion, and I have mine. And we are both entitled to that, sweetie.----------------

At least I know how to express mine with some tact.

tact n.
Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

 

[reena]

okay i don't want to fight with LT anymore, but JULIAN:

if you want bling without sidestones, what about something like THIS with a thin thin thin diamond band? it's lsmathis's new ring and i hope she doesn't mind me posting it but i am so loving this ring right now. also she says that the setting really makes her diamond pop; that's why i thought of it in the first place.

 

[reena]

oooooh--OR, one of these droolmuffins by michael b. that would be awesome--extra bling but keeping the focus on your centerstone. i also am so loving THESE right now, too. pave--do it to me one more time!

(there's another thread going on about the ring with the pave prongs right now--apparently it was designed by a pscoper for his finance! you can check them out at www.pearlmansjewelers.com)

 

[Jennifer5973]

I was thinking that too, reena--there are settings with smaller sidestones that add visual interest wihtout moving the eye away from the center stone... And on a size 4 finger with 9.4 mm stone (av for 3 ct), you'd see just a bit of the band.

Here is Mara's ring (I can't create links--hope she doesn't mind me re-posting

); it has a similar feel as lmathis' which is just exquisite and also one of my favorites here.

 

[reena]

OOOH YES--i could definitely eat them all for breakfast, and twice for lunch!

 

[lauratabs]

Opinion- personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; ie "my opinion differs from yours"

Sensitive- Susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others,Quick to take offense; touchy,easily irritated

Sorry Jennifer if our opinions are incongruous.

(and just incase)
Incongruous- lacking in harmony or compatibility

 

[sevens one]

Here's one:
a**hole- lauratabs

 

[lauratabs]

I like that one!!

I think it was witty!

 

[reena]

good use of the rodent face 7/1!