what do you think of this engagement ring setting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I guess an explanation would be more helpful I'm an antique jewelry person, but deco stuff just seems really harsh. I like the filigree(?) on the sides - that's curly and pretty, but then the completely angular square part around the diamond makes it seem very harsh and takes away from the diamond. Also, and usually I love sapphires, but they lok weird too. I sort of see what they were going for, but it's like too much going on. Also, and maybe it's just the picture, but it looks sort of fakey and cheap. I prefer something softer and more understated I think. Particularly with a one-carat that I think would get lost in this setting.

ITA. I also don't love the sapphires. But OP, if you love it, go for it!

I agree as well, and would only add that I think that setting can't decide what it wants to be.

I think diamonds (especially high-quality ones) are so beautiful in their own right that the setting for a diamond ring should be very simple.

[Anonymous]

I do not care for the setting at all, and I am someone who does like sapphires.

However, OP, you should get what YOU like, and not concern yourself with what other people like.

[Anonymous]

I love it. If it's not to fancy for you then go for it. It's about 20% too fancy for me.

Blue stones = fine.

Lady-bits? the sides of the ring? IF it looks like lady-bits then it's only the button of the ladybit. Nobody but perverted pp above will think that.

[Anonymous]

i like the idea but don't like the square piece around the diamond. It seems like it is meant to make a small diamond look bigger but you shouldn't need that with a one carat. I had a very similar ring that was my grandmothers with two rows of sapphires and one row of small diamonds, with the filigree, and loved it until it was stolen.

[Anonymous]

I love it!

But if you have a really nice, high quality diamond...I do wonder if it'd get kind of "lost" in that setting. Still, I love the setting.

[Anonymous]

I don't like it.
then, I saw the price... I can't believe you would pay that for an ugly ring.
Sorry, my honest thoughts.

[Anonymous]

I don't like it much either. It's too busy, too much going on around the diamond. If you look at the pic of the woman wearing it on her finger, you can't even tell there is diamond in it. It loses it's prominence in all the action around it.

[Anonymous]

Pp here, I'd go for something calmer like
http://www.faycullen.com/Engagement-Rings/9305/

Or

http://www.faycullen.com/Engagement-Rings/10226/

If you want sapphires in it.

[Anonymous]

OP here.

thank you for all your thoughts! I like things about the setting I posted but I'm not sure I like it in it's entirety (hence my post). My diamond is smallish (.80 carat) but colorless and cut perfectly so I agree that it might get lost in a busy setting. I'm going to look further.

What do you all think of a sapphire halo setting?
similar to this:
http://www.faycullen.com/Settings/Art-Deco-Ring-Settings/7441/

I do have my own opinions! Just finding it interesting to see what others think.

[Anonymous]

much better.

[Anonymous]

13:39 here - Your new choice is also a nope for me, but it's better than the first choice, IMO.

[Anonymous]

I don't love your new choice, but it's MUCH better than the first. What do you think about 9:10s suggestions. Though they aren't my style, but I like them a lot better...

[Anonymous]

I'm a PP and I actually don't like 19:10s suggestions, particularly the one where the diamond sticks way up. I like OP's new choice. I'd be interested in how your diamond looks though, OP. Is it round and flat cut like the one in the pictures? Also, is it just the pictures or do the metal and the stones look kind of cheesy in all these rings?

[FBO]

With the box support for the diamond, you will need a large diamond to fill the space. It will look much smaller when set.

[Anonymous]

I like it. My ring also has filigree on it. Some people love and others hate it. It actually took me a big to get used to it too. Now I love it b/c no has anything like it.