Post # 1
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.
Post # 3
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 🙂
Post # 4
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.
Post # 4
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.
Post # 5
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.”
Post # 6
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.
Post # 7
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.
Post # 8
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 $$ so that was a plus also
Post # 9
I think if you have large sidestones then it will really impact the size of your center stone, which to me is a waste. Unless you want side gemstones, and then it doesn’t cost as much as large diamond sidestones. I love pave bands though and don’t think they impact the price nearly as much, so they’re completely worth it to me. It depends a lot on your budget and tastes though.
Post # 9
I had my fiance do this…just purchase me a plain solitaire with the money he set aside for my engagement ring, and then three months later I picked out a setting from a bunch that we ordered and had it set. I love it, and I am so glad we did it that way because he didn’t want me to see it before hand and I wanted a little extra bling! You could always go with the solitaire and then a month or a year or whatever later on down the road, have it reset into something you know you’ll love.
Post # 10
it’s personal taste. don’t listen to what other people say. your bf will get you whatever makes you happy. if you like settings with side stones, then get a setting with side stones. if a big centre stone is important, then get a solitaire or smaller side stones. it’s all relative.
next time you are at the jewellery store, compare a solitare ring, on your hand, with a ring with side stones. what makes you smile more? that’s your decision.
Post # 11
@aliavenue: I definitely think this was the reasoning behind it… Diamonds increase in price exponentially, so of course one larger single stone is going to cost exponentially more than a handful of little ones, which means more commission for him. All about the $$$
Post # 12
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!
Post # 13
@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.
Post # 14
No, because personal choice is not a ‘waste of money’.