I think it''s completely a matter of personal taste. I have a WF classic tiffany knife edge setting. I had it narrowed down, it''s about 2.2mm I believe, and I have a 1.82ct stone. I originally had a 1.59ct RB in the setting when it was 2.5mm and for me it was a tad heavy for that size stone. So my vote would be to go for 2.5, not 3, but that is just my opinion.Date: 8/30/2008 11:04:29 AM
Author: smooleys
Very interesting. I am wondering if I should get a 2.5 or 3mm setting for a 1.37 stone. Any thoughts? I''m using Mark Morrell if that helps. I saw his flame setting in person the other day and it was really thin, too thin for my taste. The measurement was less or close to 2.5 (more like 2.2ish) which I guess would be his petite version. His regular version is 3mm.
Smooleys, here''s what I''ve got as for pics:Date: 8/31/2008 10:52:14 AM
Author: smooleys
Thanks Jenn...would you have some pics to share so I can see your ring size? That would be great if you do.
That certainly changes things, I''m ALL about going with what the lucky lady prefers. It won''t be "the classic tiffany" look IMO with a 3mm band and a 1.37ct stone, just the proportions seem off from "the original", but it doesn''t mean it won''t be beautiful.Date: 8/31/2008 3:19:28 PM
Author: smooleys
It definitely seems that people prefer the thinner 2.5 width. Would your advice change if I told you she doesn''t like thin bands? Not to confuse everyone, but I try to get new info from my FF whenever possible. She made a comment about not liking thin bands. With that in mind, I might opt for the 3mm. Would you?