Types of settings to accentuate your diamond

[Vincent Renaut]

So I'm in the midst of shopping for a diamond and have gotten some great input on what to look for with purchasing a diamond.

With searching all over for the perfect diamond, I began wondering if there were some well known preferences/guidelines on prongs/settings to make sure you are accentuating the diamond as much as possible, without sacrificing the integrity of the hold on the diamond in it's setting.

For me, I will be looking for a solitaire setting, with a Pave band, something simple. I've noticed there are quite a few type of prongs out there, some rather thick, with others rather thin.

Like in my search for diamonds, are there certain things I should specifically focus on when it comes to the setting/prongs as well?

Thanks in advance!

 

[molecule]

are there certain things I should specifically focus on

Do you know what the intended wants? Diamond shape, size, ring style (halo vs 3 stone vs solitaire)?
Because those are the things you should focus on.

 

[Matthews1127]

Some articles to help.:

https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/engagement-rings/prong-setting-styles/

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threadloom/search?query=setting style&tab=775

 

[ringo865]

Does she have a Pinterest account? You could get a feel for what themes she is drawn to by looking at ring inspiration she has pinned.

Personally, I like prongs to be unobtrusive. Preferably with talon shaped pointy ends. Then buffed smooth to minimize snagging.

In reality, many jewelers don’t have the finesse to do claw prongs justice, and many rings have blobby prongs. Once you pick a jeweler, look at their prongs on stuff they have done to gauge their skill level before asking for “canera level” prongs.

 

[holeydonut]

I researched quite a bit into the optical illusions caused by ring settings and the shapes used. Regarding the center stone, there are three major aspects I found. When these illusions are executed well, your center stone will look bigger. When executed poorly, the illusions start to backfire and cause the center stone to look small.


1) Delboeuf illusion:
This illusion is the concept that most halo settings rely on. Where the center stone is perceived to be larger because a thin annulus goes around the diamond. This effect is also why restaurants put food on tiny plates (makes the food seem more massive). However, if the annulus gets too large/thick, the opposite effect is the result. Once the annulus is too thick, the human brain perceives the center item to be smaller because the outer circumference "squeezes" inward toward the center.


To many, the dark circle on the right appears slightly larger than the left...
Read more here: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/cog-Delboeuf/index.html


2) Ebbinghaus illusion:
This illusion is the concept that most 3-stone and cluster settings rely on. Where the focal item is surrounded by artifacts smaller than the center item... causing the brain to perceive the item in the middle to be relatively larger. The effect requires the smaller artifacts along the edge to be arranged rather close to the center. I'm sure a theorist could argue the Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions are similar and leverage the same concept.


To many, the dark circle on the right appears slightly larger than the left...
Read more here: https://www.illusionsindex.org/ir/ebbinghaus-illusion


3) Squares outweigh circles illusion:
I don't really know what this is called officially, but from a user-interface standpoint, designers know that if you have a certain width and height to work with... circles and triangles of the same width/height appear smaller than same-sized squares when displayed near each other. Logically, this is simply because the surface area of a square is greater than a circle in the same width and height. I guess one could argue that this isn't an illusion at all haha.

Anyway, the reason this is important is that if you want the most bang for your buck with the Delboef and Ebbinghaus illusions, you would not want to use a perfect circle annulus at all. You would use a more cushion-cut shape or some filler to increase the surface area (slightly) of what you're trying to promote. Or you just separate the annulus from being immediately next to the center stone, so the brain has to do some work to "fill in" some missing pieces.

Read more here: https://medium.muz.li/optical-effects-9fca82b4cd9a



With all this in mind, I think this is why airline halos became so popular in recent years. The airline halo provides a platform that raises the diamond up a bit, which lessens the impact of a thick annulus in the Delboef illusion, and provides a backdrop of smaller stones that sort of blur in the background instead of being solid shapes right next to the girdle.

On top of these illusions, you have the optical illusion of the center stone sitting closer to someone's eye (center stones in halos are often mounted higher than what you could achieve with a solitaire), and using more dainty/thin prongs vs the traditional shape.

Anyway, all these optical illusions came into play with Brian Gavin's 810 collection halo in concept. With Brian's original prototype ring design (below), he had an 8 carat center. And the center stone looks wacky-large leveraging all these illusions that came together well.



But in a more real-world type of ring... the 810 has such a thick shank and elaborate stuff going on... a stone on the "smaller" end could cause all of the illusions to backfire and make the center stone look small. I think the 1.8 carat (my avatar pic) is the smallest before the ring starts to dominate the center stone instead of enhance it.



Basically, what I'm saying is... if you go with optical illusions, there's a fine line between it working well and backfiring if the proportions go the wrong way.

 

[JMK]

Something to consider, and you may not know the answer: how hard on jewelry is the person who will be wearing the ring?

I never thought I was particularly hard on jewelry. After wearing my vintage Art Deco engagement ring for 6 months, I learned otherwise. Sidestones and exposed prongs of any kind? Not a good choice for me.

My engagement ring is a "special occasion" piece now, and my daily diamond rings are either a channel-set eternity band with Carre cuts or a solitaire with an 8-prongs surrounded by a bezel.

With that having been said, and along the lines of what holeydonut posted, you can really make a stone look bigger or smaller depending on how you set it.

 

[doberman]

A thinner shank makes the stone look larger, but you dont want to go too thin or the ring may get damaged more easily.

 

[tyty333]

You didnt say what size your stone is?

6 prongs make (or keep) a stone looking round
4 prongs can tend to give the stone a not-so-roundish look
(I have a pear so have no first-hand knowledge of the above but its what I hear around PS).
I prefer petite claw prongs no matter how many of them you have.

A setting that pinches in at the head can make a stone look "bigger". Of course these stones are not the same size but you should be able to get the idea
from the pictures.

 

[Vincent Renaut]

Do you know what the intended wants? Diamond shape, size, ring style (halo vs 3 stone vs solitaire)?
Because those are the things you should focus on.

I completely forgot to include the diamond that I was planning on getting.

1.8 carat round ACA from WF, with a solitaire setting and pave band.

 

[Vincent Renaut]

Something to consider, and you may not know the answer: how hard on jewelry is the person who will be wearing the ring?

I never thought I was particularly hard on jewelry. After wearing my vintage Art Deco engagement ring for 6 months, I learned otherwise. Sidestones and exposed prongs of any kind? Not a good choice for me.

My engagement ring is a "special occasion" piece now, and my daily diamond rings are either a channel-set eternity band with Carre cuts or a solitaire with an 8-prongs surrounded by a bezel.

With that having been said, and along the lines of what holeydonut posted, you can really make a stone look bigger or smaller depending on how you set it.

She is a stay at home mom, so I'm not sure how harsh she would be on the ring, however I am worried perhaps of certain harsh cleaning chemicals getting in contact with the ring quite frequently.

 

[Vincent Renaut]

A thinner shank makes the stone look larger, but you dont want to go too thin or the ring may get damaged more easily.

Would you say shanks that are less than 2mm to be a bit too think for day to day wear?

 

[Vincent Renaut]

You didnt say what size your stone is?

6 prongs make (or keep) a stone looking round
4 prongs can tend to give the stone a not-so-roundish look
(I have a pear so have no first-hand knowledge of the above but its what I hear around PS).
I prefer petite claw prongs no matter how many of them you have.

A setting that pinches in at the head can make a stone look "bigger". Of course these stones are not the same size but you should be able to get the idea
from the pictures.

1.816 Carat ACA round from WF

 

[holeydonut]

I completely forgot to include the diamond that I was planning on getting.

1.8 carat round ACA from WF, with a solitaire setting and pave band.

Any chance you're getting this one? I was so close to pulling the trigger on it haha.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4022264.htm

 

[Vincent Renaut]

I found this setting that I like the look of.

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...r2478-caviar-diamond-engagement-ring-3550.htm

My only questions:

- Would the peek a boo halo hinder light entering the diamond from the sides and therefore light performance? Or does this not matter as much because most of the light enters directly above on a round brilliant?

- Does the peek a boo halo help with the optical illusion effect shown in one of the above posts, or will it make the diamond appear smaller since the halo will be rose gold, and not diamonds?

- Is a shank width of 1.7mm too thin for every day use?

 

[Vincent Renaut]

Any chance you're getting this one? I was so close to pulling the trigger on it haha.
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4022264.htm

Nope, that is a bit above my budget, your stone is safe! haha

I'm looking at this one:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3947719.htm

 

[holeydonut]

I found this setting that I like the look of.

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...r2478-caviar-diamond-engagement-ring-3550.htm

My only questions:

- Would the peek a boo halo hinder light entering the diamond from the sides and therefore light performance? Or does this not matter as much because most of the light enters directly above on a round brilliant?

- Does the peek a boo halo help with the optical illusion effect shown in one of the above posts, or will it make the diamond appear smaller since the halo will be rose gold, and not diamonds?

- Is a shank width of 1.7mm too thin for every day use?

The halo, whether it's an airline halo (gap between the girdle and halo) or flush (halo right alongside the girdle) will not affect the light performance. This is because a round brilliant diamond reflects light coming in through the table and crown from above. A diamond does not rely on light coming up through the setting or pavilion.

If a diamond has light leakage, a viewer may be able to "see through" it when looking down through the table. In those instances the viewer may see dust that has settled on the pavilion, the setting, or the wearer's hand. But I think you won't have to worry about this with a WF ACA.

I think a reasonable-sized annulus of any kind will help with the optical illusion of the appearance of the diamond... regardless if it's a diamond-studded halo, or even if it were metal. Here's one of BGD's "halo" designs without stones in the halo. The very subtle annulus is still leveraging the Delboeuf effect.



https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...nd-side-stones/810-collection-810-12-1-6965-1

But, it also comes down to a matter of taste, and whether the illusion is something you want to go with. Some people think the halos and elaborate settings make a ring ugly, or don't actually accomplish the desired effect.

 

[doberman]

Would you say shanks that are less than 2mm to be a bit too think for day to day wear?

That really depends on what you're doing on a daily basis. Sitting at a desk is fine. The more vigorous the activity the greater chance is for damage. I have a very thin shank ring (see avatar) and its held up fine thus far.

 

[sledge]

I found this setting that I like the look of.

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...r2478-caviar-diamond-engagement-ring-3550.htm

I really like the look of the band on this one (blue). However, I am not a fan of the halo effects (red) that are going on. Looks very odd to me, and not sure I see the vision they were trying to make with this look.

Obviously opinions vary. My fiancee's ring isn't the norm either, and I know isn't many people's style but she loves it and I've come to love it as well.

Just curious if the halo effect I pointed out was your INTENTION?

- Is a shank width of 1.7mm too thin for every day use?

I believe most the girls here recommend a 2mm+ shank for durability, etc. I know a few have 1.6-1.8mm but it's not the norm.

What ring size is your future fiancee? And have you looked at any settings in-person? If not, I suggest you do so. You don't realize how tiny and dainty < 2mm is until you see it in person.

Nope, that is a bit above my budget, your stone is safe! haha

I'm looking at this one:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3947719.htm

Did you happen to notice this stone? Gives you a small clarity bump to VS2. But look at the video, this little jewel is a firecracker!

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3947721.htm