- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
I'm totally not trying to start a war or anything, I just want opinions. I am a waiting bee and this past weekend my SO and I went ring shopping and at the place we liked best the salesman said he thought side stones were kind of a waste of money and what he would do is buy a cheaper solitare setting so there is the most amount of money left for the biggest or best main stone.
So what is your opinion and why?
Btw, I think I am in love with rings with small side stones so I'm just trying to see what you guys think.
Here are a couple of photos of rings I love.
I think it really depends... do you want a larger center stone or do you want a more interesting setting with accents? I love solitaires, but once I found a setting that I absolutely adored (that had 4 small side stones.. like 0.12 ct total) I was set on it. (I'm still waiting, too :) ) I already voted on your poll that I love the top one :) I don't think it's ever a waste, unless you want a really large center stone and settings with accents are out of your budget. I like pave or small side stones, just gives it a little something extra/different :)
It really just depends on what you like. If you like it, its not a waste of money, if you dont, then it is. If you dont really care, then it probably could be considered a waste too. I didnt want a plain solitare and love the side stones, so nope, it wasnt a waste of money. Besides the difference between a ring with and without side stones is only about 600-700... the center stone probably isnt going to see much improvement with only a few hundred if you're in the 1ct+ range.
I feel like opinions will definitely be all over the place on this one, but personally, I LOVE me some side stones. Solitaires are gorgeous, but just weren't for me, and I wanted my ring to have as much stone-age as possible. Haha. If you love the ring with the side stones, then no, it's not a waste of money.
As a ex-jewerly salesperson, I can tell you that some stores give extra commissions for salespeople that sell large loose stones - probably why he/she thinks they are a "waste of money."
This. Side stones really aren't that expensive in melee sizes. I chose a solitaire but we could have gotten a pave band for only a few hundred more.
IMO its worth it, but not doing side stones is a whole different style. You could always just do them 70% of the way around so it looks like the side stones go all the way around but its more cost efficient. I personally have diamonds all the way around the setting and band, but the only person who can really see them is me, because I like them.
for me, more diamonds = more bling. how can that be a waste :)
when i got my diamond wedding band (i have 2 wedding bands, one for every day & 1 diamonds), it was our jeweller who said not to get diamonds all the way around the band as no one would see them. saved us some $$ so that was a plus also
I think if you have large sidestones then it will really impact the size of your center stone, which to me is a waste. Unless you want side gemstones, and then it doesn't cost as much as large diamond sidestones. I love pave bands though and don't think they impact the price nearly as much, so they're completely worth it to me. It depends a lot on your budget and tastes though.
I had my fiance do this...just purchase me a plain solitaire with the money he set aside for my engagement ring, and then three months later I picked out a setting from a bunch that we ordered and had it set. I love it, and I am so glad we did it that way because he didn't want me to see it before hand and I wanted a little extra bling! You could always go with the solitaire and then a month or a year or whatever later on down the road, have it reset into something you know you'll love.
it's personal taste. don't listen to what other people say. your bf will get you whatever makes you happy. if you like settings with side stones, then get a setting with side stones. if a big centre stone is important, then get a solitaire or smaller side stones. it's all relative.
next time you are at the jewellery store, compare a solitare ring, on your hand, with a ring with side stones. what makes you smile more? that's your decision.
@aliavenue: I definitely think this was the reasoning behind it... Diamonds increase in price exponentially, so of course one larger single stone is going to cost exponentially more than a handful of little ones, which means more commission for him. All about the $$$
They are definately not a waste of money! I personally LOVE a band with diamonds! The more sparkle the better for me! The only aspect that could be considered a waste of money is when the diamonds go all the way around the band instead of halfway or 3/4. Mine is halfway and im glad i didnt go 100% for a couple reasons: 1. I like having the option of turning my rings around to the plain band to hide the bling when im around people that i dont feel that safe. 2) or you just feel like wearing a plain band the odd day.This would obviously only apply to your wedding band. 3) im on a keyboard all day i risk hitting the inside of my ring , which could cause diamonds to fall out and lastly price!! Btw- i really like the last pic of the ring you posted!
@GoldfishPie: Plus, when you buy a simple setting and a loose center stone there is no overhead - no designing fees, no manufacturing costs, nothing. So, the salesperson gets a little extra, too.
I think a simple engagement setting and a single diamond is beautiful. However, it also the way for the store to make the most.
not at all. they add to the beauty of the ring. If you want them then they aren't a waste at all
not at all. they add to the beauty of the ring. If you want them then they aren't a waste at all
No, I do not think they're a waste of money. If you want a bigger center stone, get a solitaire & upgrade the setting later on. If going smaller on the center to get more side stones doesn't bother you, go for it! :-)
No way they are not a waste, especially if you have a larger center stone...it completely changes the scale and proportions of the ring. That being said, 1ct total weight of loose side stones will never sell for the same price as 1 ct loose solitaire stone, so I understand his point. Side stones are generally of lower quality than the solitaire, and they are easier to come by for cheap. I wouldn't sacrifice my main stone for side stones, but spending extra to get a nice setting as a complement is totally worth it.
BTW, I like the very top ring best from a proportion standpoint. :) gorgeous.
i love solitaires where all the emphasis is on the one diamond.
i love solitaires where all the emphasis is on the one diamond.
If everyone got a diamond solitaire, there wouldn't be much to choose from. We'd all be running around with basically the same rings!
My side stones are what make my ring, my ring.
I don't understand how a salesman could say that unless you told him you wanted a solitare. I personally prefer them.
Edit: Aw, just read above he was prob trying to sell you a larger center stone.
If you're planning on upgrading your setting at all, I could see how they could be considered a waste. I don't plan on doing any upgrades, though, and I love my sparkly band!
It's a lot less expensive to have a setting with side stones than to make a significantly noticeable change in your center diamond's carat size. And if you like side stones, then it is definitely not a waste!!! I had a plain solitaire and after some issues with the head, my DH picked out a completely new setting-- a milgrain split shank with pave diamonds. I am so happy with it and I love it WAY more than I did the original plain band. Go with what you love- you'll be wearing it a long time!
I love my side stones! Personally, just a solitare is too plain for my taste...so I really love that my DH got me some beautiful side stones in my setting!
I go for detailed, intricate rings, so no, I wouldn't consider side stones a waste of money. Sounds like the salesperson was just ignoring your taste in rings and trying to sell you a more expensive rock for the center.
I don't think side stones are a waste of money, I just prefer the look of a single stone personally. I say get what YOU love.
for a long time I thought I was a plain-band-simple-solitaire kind of girl, but then I fell in love with more detailed settings. FI surprised me with a 3 stone halo with sapphire side stones and I couldn't be happier!
I had a solitaire, and while it was beautiful, I had it reset into a setting with side stones and I think the side stones enhance the center stone so much more than the solitaire setting.
I think it depends on what you prefer; the setting or the centerstone? If you find your tastes change and you won't want a certain setting forever, and the centerstone's more important to you, then I think a solitaire makes more sense. Personally, I think the setting determines the style of ring, so I'd put more importance in the setting and just choose the center stone that would go best with the setting. In that case, no, sidestones aren't a waste of money.
I don't think they're a waste of money at all, if that's what you like. My first ring was a solitaire which I loved...but was very plain. I ended up buying an enhancer to wear with it to give it some extra bling (and make it sit next to my wedding band better), and after a while wished I could have it reset into another setting since I never took the enhancer off and wore it alone anymore. This time around, I knew I wanted sides, but since I wanted a 'smaller' center anyway (1/2 center with sides) I don't think it would have impacted the price *that* much. If I had wanted a solitaire again, I probably would have gone bigger in size...I guess I thought about it backwards LOL.
Its all personal preference. I have a pave set stones around my band. My hands are sorta small and daintyish so larger side stones would have overpowered my finger but I like the idea of the extra sparkle. My wedding band has the pave diamonds all the way around it.
I have a three stone rings with diamonds down the side. I personally prefer this ring to a solitare only because I'm not really that concerned with how big the center/main stone is. I love that my ring sparkles from all angles. Our logic was less expensive, more sparkle. :)
I have side stones and I love them! And I agree with the PPs, the extra diamonds dind't affect the price of my setting all that much - maybe at most by $300 or so. It's all personal choice, and if you love bling (like I obviously do) then I figure what's the harm in spluring a bit more on something you're going to look at every day for the rest of your life? My $.02
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| MrsOliveBird | 11 |
| aussiebee | 10 |
| janetsnakehole | 8 |
| j_jaye | 5 |
| Rivendeler | 5 |
| simpleandchic | 4 |
| kat2014 | 4 |
| Scottish_lassie | 4 |
| MrsMSmith | 4 |
| Adalita | 4 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| MrsOliveBird | 4 |
| Adalita | 2 |
| ellisrobertson | 2 |
| GelaMac | 1 |
| coralrhapsody | 1 |
