Which would have more BLING-pact

[Dreamer_D]

Which style of ring do you think has the best hand presence, the most BLING, and the most va-va-voom:

1) A three stone ring with the following proportions: .33ct - .70ct - .33ct.

2) A graduated five stone ring with the following proportions: .20ct - .33ct - .50ct - .33ct - .20ct.

3) Or some other option that would have a similar cost (no solitaires).

 

[yssie]

The fivestone... at those sizes no one stone is going to WOW you - esp. after wearing your solitaire, IMO the blingitude of two extra 4mm stones beats the difference between 5 and 5.5mm.

 

[diamondringlover]

That would be one heck of a five stone!!

 

[troJane]

the 5 stone will be diamonds all across the finger, deliiish

 

[swingirl]

5 stone. It'll cover the finger nicely. Are you looking for an ering? or alternative to the traditional ering?

 

[yennyfire]

Definitely the 5 stone! Sounds dreamy (pun intended! )

 

[m-2-b]

Agree w/ all of the above--5 stone!

 

[Dreamer_D]

The fivestone... at those sizes no one stone is going to WOW you - esp. after wearing your solitaire, IMO the blingitude of two extra 4mm stones beats the difference between 5 and 5.5mm.

Do you think a ring like the five stone would look cool? Would you go bigger for the center??

 

[Dreamer_D]

5 stone. It'll cover the finger nicely. Are you looking for an ering? or alternative to the traditional ering?

I think a stand along LHR.

 

[centralsquare]

I voted for a 5 stone. great finger coverage for a stand alone ring!

 

[coati]

I vote (bezeled) 3 stone, as I have one with somewhat similar proportions. .45 .60 .45
My 3 stone ring's bezels add oomph, and the result is a whopping 7mm in diameter at the widest point of the ring. It's substantial enough to wear as a stand-alone ring. This ring is both flashy and practical. (..and let me tell ya, the .60 does have wow factor-even after wearing a more substantial solitaire. I always go back to this ring)

Pic for reference.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I vote (bezeled) 3 stone, as I have one with somewhat similar proportions. .45 .60 .45
My 3 stone ring's bezels add oomph, and the result is a whopping 7mm in diameter at the widest point of the ring. It's substantial enough to wear as a stand-alone ring. This ring is both flashy and practical. (..and let me tell ya, the .60 does have wow factor-even after wearing a more substantial solitaire. I always go back to this ring)

Pic for reference.

Coati, you know I covet that ring!

 

[coati]

Something similar would look fantastic on you! White metal would look amazing too...

 

[Dreamer_D]

Something similar would look fantastic on you! White metal would look amazing too...

Does you ring have a bridge with an open gallery or is it solid metal from stone to finger at the gallery? Do you miss seeing the pavilions?

 

[SuzyQZ]

I vote (bezeled) 3 stone, as I have one with somewhat similar proportions. .45 .60 .45
My 3 stone ring's bezels add oomph, and the result is a whopping 7mm in diameter at the widest point of the ring. It's substantial enough to wear as a stand-alone ring. This ring is both flashy and practical. (..and let me tell ya, the .60 does have wow factor-even after wearing a more substantial solitaire. I always go back to this ring)

Pic for reference.

SWOON!!!
Coati, how I love your rings!

 

[marcy]

I voted for the 5 stone ring too. It would be gorgeous.

 

[Sundial]

As much as I love three stone rings, I voted for the five stone. I just got a new five stone ring with 40 pointers and I am amazed at the finger coverage and blinginess!

 

[coati]

Something similar would look fantastic on you! White metal would look amazing too...

Does you ring have a bridge with an open gallery or is it solid metal from stone to finger at the gallery? Do you miss seeing the pavilions?

I took a quick pic so you can see the side. Solid metal. I don't miss seeing the pavilions, but these transitional cuts are really shallow, and two are more shallow than the third, so it's not an even line-up anyway.



Thanks SuzyQZ! And likewise!

 

[Amys Bling]

I think a five stone would have amazing finger coverage. Are you rethinking your ERing reset into the .3-1.66-.3 threestone?? Would think potential project take the place of or be in addition to that ring... That may change my vote.

 

[Amys Bling]

I have to agree with Yssie's reasoning- the .7 verses the .5 center stone will have less of an impact than the extra two stones.

 

[lknvrb4]

A five stone would be fabulous. Have you gone shopping to try both on? I have found that how they are set really can make a difference on finger coverage.

 

[iota15]

I voted for the 3- stone without looking at the comments. But I agree with Yssie now too. On quick review, I didn't see the 33pointers (PS gift right?) would be at play in both rings, so I'm changing my vote to to the 5-stone.

 

[Lula]

I have to agree with Yssie's reasoning- the .7 verses the .5 center stone will have less of an impact than the extra two stones.

+1

Plus, I think the "three-step" size gradation (.50, .33., 20) is a very graceful and feminine look.

 

[risingsun]

I love the look of the five stone ring. It will give you a lot of finger coverage. In the right setting, it will be blingtastic--in classy way