Help me choose a ring setting!

eilis1228

OK, so the original ring I wanted was going to have be custom made, which was out of budget. FI has said that he's fine with me getting it, but I feel like I'm being a diva by refusing to compromise. For reference, this is the original setting I wanted:

Original Setting

Here are two similar settings my jeweler found:

First Setting

Second Setting

They're essentially the same thing, just one has diamonds and a milgrain effect on the band, and the other is plain.

My two side stones will be purple sapphires, and the peekaboos will be alexandrite on one side and garnet on the other (our birthstones).

I'm torn between the two. On the one hand, I feel like my finger is so small and the center stone and side stones will take up so much space that it's almost pointless to get diamonds on the band. We could put them on the wedding band instead where they'd be seen. On the other hand, I feel like diamonds on the band would be really pretty and maybe help break up all the color from the peekaboos and side stones?

For reference, I'm a size 4, and the center stone is a moissy that is the equivalent of 1.5 carats. Here's a pic of the loose stone on my ring finger:

HALP! Which one? The original setting is also still technically an option, but I don't know if I'm being too bratty by asking for it.

Pepperally

Are you a little more traditional or more of a modern, clean lines kinda chick?  I'd say traditional is more the first one, and more modern/simple the second.

ETA:  but both are stunning!!!  it would be hard to choose!

eilis1228

I'm more traditional and FI is more modern/simple. :-P

Pepperally

Oh pooh!  What an answer!  But I would say you have to wear it so it should be more of what your style is.

eilis1228

LOL I know. That's where part of my dilemma is. I want him to like the ring too. It's a huge investment on his end, and I'd hate for him to look at the ring and be like, "Meh." He keeps saying it's my ring though, so I should get what I like. So torn! Plus it's hard to visualize what they'll look on my finger.

blabla89

I personally like the second one better because it's a simpler design. But that's just me. They're both nice and I'm sure they'd both look lovely with the stones you've picked out.

lilacck28

the "original" setting isn't showing up! I WANT TO SEE! 

I think I like the first? I like vintagey/ tradtitional. But I agree, I'm not sure the side diamonds would even show! And a plain band would be easier to clean. 

loves2shop4shoes

I prefer the second one.  It's a cleaner, simpler design, and since your hands are so small and the center stone takes up so much of your finger (without even the side stones), I feel like that extra detail would get lost anyway.

GoldenPenguin

loves2shop4shoes said:

I prefer the second one.  It's a cleaner, simpler design, and since your hands are so small and the center stone takes up so much of your finger (without even the side stones), I feel like that extra detail would get lost anyway.

I was going to say all of this. So pretend I did.

buttercup1958

I prefer the second one as well. I have tiny hands too and I think the first setting will be overwhelming. And I'm not a huge diamond fan in general but its up to you. You are going to be wearing it.

bethsmiles

I prefer the second but I don't really have a specific reasoning so I'm not all that helpful...

eilis1228

lilacck28 said:

the "original" setting isn't showing up! I WANT TO SEE! 

I think I like the first? I like vintagey/ tradtitional. But I agree, I'm not sure the side diamonds would even show! And a plain band would be easier to clean. 

Edited with the fixed pic of the original setting

KeptInStitches

I like the second one because it's got cleaner lines.

AuroraRose41

I guess I am in the minority here, but I like the first one better. I like it because it is extremely similar to the one that you wanted to have custom designed. I am also slightly biased because the one that BF ordered for me has the channel set diamonds on the band too. But they are both gorgeous! 

eilis1228

@AuroraRose41 I love it too. I know it's not necessarily "simple yet elegant," but it's so pretty and is very similar to the original setting. However, I do like the cleaner lines of the second one and think it's more practical for the size of the center stone and the size of my finger. I'm torn. 

I was having a hard time visualizing the rings on my finger, so I actually took a ruler and measured out in millimeters how much space the three stones will take up on my finger:

I guess that answers my question. Unless I do the original setting with the diamonds running up the side of the band, it's pointless to do diamonds on the band. The three stones will take up my entire finger. 

Thanks for all your input! I appreciate everything that's been said, and it's interesting too how universally liked the first setting is.

AuroraRose41

You know what? I am going to take back my statement. I didn't realize how much room the middle and 2 side stones would take up, and I think I prefer the second one as you probably couldn't see the diamonds in the band anyways with the side stones. But I still like the picture of the first one . 

luckya23

My ring has decent top coverage, and also 3/4 eternity type shank... I don't think extra sparkle is ever wasted!
Plus the only time I ever squeeze my fingers together like so is to take a photo of my hand! I often see a good portion of the shank.

Pepperally

Kelani23 said:

My ring has decent top coverage, and also 3/4 eternity type shank... I don't think extra sparkle is ever wasted! Plus the only time I ever squeeze my fingers together like so is to take a photo of my hand! I often see a good portion of the shank.

Is it me? Does anyone else cringe when the word shank is used? I don't know what it is about that word. It's a weird word.

eilis1228

It sounds like shaft lol

eilis1228

Kelani23 said:

My ring has decent top coverage, and also 3/4 eternity type shank... I don't think extra sparkle is ever wasted!
Plus the only time I ever squeeze my fingers together like so is to take a photo of my hand! I often see a good portion of the shank.

I didn't really consider that. Good point! I still think I'll stick to the plain band though and do diamonds on my wedding band. I figure that way all the bling will definitely be seen. :-)

Peaseblossom55

They are both pretty bands, I think the second one might work better with a bigger stone but I love the first band because that is what my engagement ring band looks like.  So I'm partial.

eilis1228

Peaseblossom55 said:

They are both pretty bands, I think the second one might work better with a bigger stone but I love the first band because that is what my engagement ring band looks like.  So I'm partial.

I'm staring longingly at it. I really do love the first one. I'm sure your ring is beautiful!

LabLove86

I am going with the majority and saying the second one. I personally tend to like the more simple designs - or split shanks (and yes @pepperally - it is a weird word) . . . . . Not that what I like matters so much for your ring. . . . but especially with a smaller finger/ring size I agree with your decision

BreMR

I am going against the majority and saying I like the first one better, don't get me wrong, they're both lovely but I feel like the 2nd one seems like a thicker band and with your tiny fingers.... I donno.  Again, both super lovely and you can't go wrong!

eilis1228

@BreMR I had that concern too about the thickness of the band. According to the website, the band is 2.75mm at the top, so it's actually not thick at all. Not sure why the picture looks so wide.

luckya23

Probably because the center is smaller than yours will be?

BreMR

I just have to ask though, are you having a hard time loving these rings because you're still in love with the other one? I know you say you don't want to be a diva, but if you're in love with the first one and your Fi is saying you could still get it, would it be terrible to do? Just throwing it out there....

lilacck28

If you get the ring and you decide you'd prefer it to be thinner, you can always have the jeweler shave it down. 

Though... I have tiny pudgy baby hands, and wanted a thin ring. I think mine is 1.8 or 1.9 mm (it's a pave band.) I considered the plain band too, but I couldn't find many plain bands that were that thin, and the idea of spending money for platinum that I would just want shaved away made me cringe! So, I can see how you wouldn't want to necessarily do that... but just remember that it's technically an option!

eilis1228

@BreMR Yes, I think that's part of it, but measuring out the layout of the ring on my finger definitely helped. Even if I went with the original setting, the diamonds on the band would barely be seen and may even look a little strange since the only cover half the band and don't go past the side stones... I'm sure I'll love the plain band, it's just hard to get over my "first love."

eilis1228

@lilacck28 I think 2.75mm is fine... but the ring I have now is 5mm, so anything smaller than that seems tiny right now. I really DO NOT like how thick the band is on my current ring. Were those trendy in the 80s or something? I don't see how my mom lived it with like that. I may stick with the 2.75mm for the e-ring and then do a thinner wedding band with channel set or pave diamonds. I'll have to play around at the jeweler's. Hmm I don't know. I'll have to ask tomorrow when he responds to my email. I think they may have some smaller ones in that model. The original one he sent me was 3.3mm, and I found the 2.75mm version pretty easily.

Sorry, I'm thinking "out loud."

luckya23

I think with the larger than average stones you have to be careful with the head size - generally the larger head sizes tend to come with a thicker band so the ring stays in its original proportions. Few of the settings I looked at in the mall, for instance, were correctly sized to fit a 2 ct cushion, so it was going to take imagination to see the true vision.
My jeweler had a relationship with the setting company, so he was able to order a sample to see in person before it was ordered/made in my size.. Did yours mention anything about getting samples for you, or do you plan to order off the photos? It was soooo much easier to compare my final two"in real life" - the other one had a head that was clearly too small and it just didn't work.

Eta: the stock size in the chain jewellers seemed to be a 7 ring finger with a 1 ct stone as the average. That may be the proportion in these photos too.