Would love to see rings with bands <2mm.

[peonygirl]

I''m debating between 1.7mm bands and 2mm bands for my wedding set, but I can''t figure out if the former would look too thin. I''m especially interested in seeing very thin shared-prong bands.

Also, what''s the thickness of the Ritani Endless Love e-ring (the one without the halo)? I remember liking that thickness, but I never asked the sales associate that details.
Thanks!

 

[MissAva]

Have you looked at the Micheal B princess rings?

 

[mrssalvo]

Here''s the thread to butterfly17''s Ritani. she says the bands are 1.7-1.8.

 

[appletini]

All I can say from trying on rings is that 2mm is very small. It appears bigger on PS becasue all the pictures we see are magnified, but in real life up close in personal I have to strain my eyes to see that tiny melee. I feel that because its so small it doesn''t have the full sparkle potential that it should. I have tried on both the ritani endless love and the whiteflash halo, both are very thin. 3mm is really not as big as we think it is. I personally think 2.5mm is better, but then again my ring size is a 6.5.

If you have a ruler handy with centimeters on it, look closely at the tick marks for mm, very small.

 

[mrssalvo]

i agree apple. I wear a 3 1/2 and would prefer to not go lower than a 2mm band. I want to see some sparkle for the amount of $$ I''ll be paying plus. My eternity band from WF is 2mm or just a touch larger and it''s great. I surely wouldn''t want to go thinner.

 

[Morticia]

My e-ring is Ritani''s Endless Love (with the halo but the bands are the same width, w/halo and w/o halo) and honestly, sometimes I feel as though it is a little *too* thin for me. It''s pretty and I love it, don''t get me wrong, but it is VERY VERY thin. 2 MM or 2.5 MM would be perfect.....

I''m gonna have to get 2 wedding bands, I think. Much to my FI''s dismay. lol.

 

[peonygirl]

Thanks for the feedback thus far! The reason I'm wanting to go thin is that my favorite (and only!) ring is about 1.7mm wide, and it's perfect for me. Then again it's not very blingy, but it's also micropave. I wonder if a 1.7mm shared-prong ring would sparkle more.

Edited to add my ring pic: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-sapphire-and-diamond-graduation-ring.34007/. Yeah, not very blingy.

I just love delicateness AND sparkle, and I'm trying to balance my dual desires.

Plus my center stone will only be around 1 carat, so I'm trying to maximize the side of that.

 

[mrssalvo]

Here's a picture of my shared prong eternity band from WF. it's 2mm or just a touch over like 2.3mm. the second is a pic of the eternity band with my 1 carat solitaire..be sure to check out ally's recent thread, Leon made here ring and said he doesn't go below 2mm in the width of the bands because it's structually not sound. If this is a ring you plan on wearing all the time, i'd go with the experts so your ring lasts a lifetime. Also, WF won't make a shared prong ring less than 2mm.

 

[Mara]

2mm is very thin...my w-ring is 2.3mm and it''s pretty thin and insubstantial on it''s own. My toe rings are 2mm each, you can see pictures of them on my toes in my thread around here somewhere, and I was shocked at how small they were when I opened the box. I mean they are PERFECT but I too was wondering if 2mm would be too wide and obnoxious for the toes etc...well they are TINY. And they are channel set. To be honest from where my head is when I look down at my toes, if I am inside, you cannot even SEE the diamonds. It''s only when I go outside or into brighter lighting that you can see the line of sparkle. I adore them and find it interesting that the width is so little that it''s hard to see the diamonds. I think with micropave in those thing widths, you definitely see lots of bling regardless, because it''s encrusted, but other than that, channel or shared prong will have alot of metal protecting the stones under 2mm and so you won''t have as much sparkle.

I say stick with 2mm or even 2.1mm or similar if you are going with shared prong or similar. Ritani''s are 1.5mm and 1.7mm. I think Kayla said her e-ring is 1.5mm and the flanking rings are 1.7mm and I think that''s a great size for max sparkle with how they are set. They did a good job of showcasing the stones there.

 

[Morticia]

Hey Peonygirl, if you want to maximize a 1 ct, why don''t you go with the Ritani Endless Love, with the halo? I have a 1 ct Old European Cut diamond set in the halo and it really adds size to the stone.

If it''s the halo you don''t want, then Ritani has the non halo pave setting. These settings look soooooooooo pretty with the matching band. And yes, the super thin band will make your stone stand out. My girlfriends love the thinness of my band, even if I do wish it were a tad thicker.

Also, check this out. http://www.thefacetscollection.com/item.cfm?item_id=2173 Facats has a shared prong eternity band that is 1.5 mm wide. I''m sure they could custom make your engagement ring setting with that band. They are really nice over too.

Good luck!

Peonies are my favorite flower too!

 

[peonygirl]

Morticia, I really like the endless love collection (w/o the halo), but they''re a little too pricey unfortunately. I''m trying to get the wedding set (without the center stone) to be around 2k. I could probably get a .9 center stone and the endless love setting, but I''d rather get a bigger stone. Also, I think shared-prong rings sparkle more than micro-pave.

 

[Lynn B]

The melee in my e-ring are .03 ACAs and the width is 2.2mm. IMHO, a "perfect balance" of thin and delicate - yet "sturdy" and substantial-feeling... and still with a (very!) nice SPARKLE factor.

(My w-ring is .05 ACAs and about 2.5 mm).

 

[Mara]

Nice rings , Lynn.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 11/4/2005 6:24:15 PM
Author: Mara
Nice rings , Lynn.

Thank you, Mara. Especially considering that you have largely fueled my (diamond) fire!!!

 

[Shay37]

Date: 11/4/2005 7:49:05 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 11/4/2005 6:24:15 PM
Author: Mara
Nice rings , Lynn.

Thank you, Mara. Especially considering that you have largely fueled my (diamond) fire!!!

Yeah, she''s guilty of that for a lot of us.

Also, PG, I know you don''t like the halo, but my band is 2 mm, and it is dainty and delicate. From the stock photos without a hand, they seem very substantial. I saw them on Mara and Alj''s hands on their field trip, and they were tiny. I think 2mm is a great size. It looks ethereal, but it feels substantial at the same time. I am not scared to wear it at all. I don''t think I could wear a thinner band. I''d have to just stare at it a lot.

shay

 

[butterfly 17]

Hi,
I have the Ritani endless love that is posted above and I actually had Ritani remake the e-ring because they made the e-ring noticeably thinner than the bands.
The first e-ring I got was about 1.5 mm and compared to the bands which were 1.7-1.8 mm, it was noticeable. Mind you, I am really picky about things.
I think it was just that ring though, because I actually brought it to BBB to compare it to what they had in the showcase and their e-ring was thicker, as thick as one of the bands.
So, I contacted Ritani about it and they said to just send them the ring back and they would remake it, which they did.

The design of the rings are thin, which is why I chose to get the two wedding bands and not just one. I actually prefer 3mm and all my other rings are about that.

When I questioned Ritani about the thinness of the shanks, they said that the Endless Loves were actually designed to be worn with the two bands, which is why they are as thin as they are and why most of their advertisements show the ring with two wedding bands. Similar to the Michael B wisp bands, although his wisp bands are meant to be a shade thinner than the e-ring counterpart.

If you add up the thickness of the three shanks together it comes out to 5.1 to 5.4 mm., so that averages to about 2.5mm if you only had two rings on. If they are 2 mm each, that would be 6 mm total, which averages out to 3 mm for two rings.

Another thing I want to point out is that the diamond weight is very small, so there is a lot more metal supporting the diamonds than there is diamonds (LOL

), hence there is less of a chance of diamonds popping out or the ring bending in half. Also, the diamonds are set perfectly and pretty securely.

Have you looked at Memoire settings and bands, they are gorgeous!!!!

 

[butterfly 17]

I forgot to add that the 1.7-1.8 mm that I wrote is just a guess. They could be 2 mm for all I know. I don't actually know what the width is and I don't have anything to measure it with.
Also, I never actually asked Ritani what the width was.
I just compared it to my Leon Mege ring that I had at the time and that was 2.3 mm.


ETA: If you click on this link to pearlman's website, he describes the rings as 2 mm each.

http://www.pearlmansjewelers.com/product.php?DesignerID=53&ItemTypeID=1&ItemID=2969&start=6

 

[Jelly]

Have you seen this A. Jaffe set? It was one of my other choices before going with a half eternity WF ring. The bands are small and stack nicely.

Here''s a link to a thread of a fellow ps member with these beautiful rings: Here

My local jewelry store quoted me $999 for each ring.

 

[Jelly]

here it is

 

[mrssalvo]

I also love this set from Precision Set. i know Jonathan at GOG carries the line..

 

[Mara]

Date: 11/4/2005 7:49:05 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 11/4/2005 6:24:15 PM
Author: Mara
Nice rings , Lynn.

Thank you, Mara. Especially considering that you have largely fueled my (diamond) fire!!!

Whatever are you girls talking about?!?!