(Closed) Engagement Ring Dilemma!

posted 7 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
2815 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: March 2012

I’d go with choice 2.  Halos are EVERYWHERE these days and I’m kind of sick of them.  But that’s just my opinion.  I think the cushion cut is beautiful and will look stunning alone.

Post # 4
1723 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

Hi!  I’m not sure exactly what micro pave means but here is a round solitaire with a pave band:

I’m personally not a fan of the halos, I like the more “classic” look.

Post # 5
367 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

aBOUT THE DIAMONDS….Honestly, I don’t know much but from my experience, the round stone is most “classic”. It will never go out of style. The halo might…but never the elss, I have a halo with a round stone. 

I personally this the halo with the round is goreous if you don’t have any bands on the sides…it’s very classic and elegant. I do have side stones but in the far future, i’ll probably make it more plain to go with the times/styles/and my age!

Post # 6
29 posts
  • Wedding: April 2011

Cushion with Halo!

You don’t have to go with a huge center stone if you get a halo, even a .25 ct or a .50 can look big, plus the sparkle factor is amazing. Happy ring searching!

Post # 7
477 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: March 2011

Get the best of both worlds!

Try a round stone with a rounded square halo for a cushion effect.  My best friend and I (coincidentally) both have round stones set in a cushion micro-pave setting.  Her’s is a diamond, so it looks like an extra big, super sparkly cushion-shaped stone, but you always have the option of having a classic round stone to change or pass on, if you think a cushion cut stone is too trendy.  Mine is a good sized round sapphire and I like the finger coverage a round stone gives me (I have size 8 fingers!), but I do prefer a square shape.  


Post # 8
81 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: October 2012

I would say if you are going for a smaller diamond, go with the halo- but if you are going for a little bit of a larger stone, I vote for number 2!

Post # 9
1240 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

Not sure if you’re set on diamonds. But you can look at Moissanite too. Since it’s cheaper, you could go larger.

Post # 11
335 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2012

@FutureMrsMesser: I’ve recently been ring searching myself, and just a head’s up (you may know this already), the prices for diamonds goes WAY up once you hit the 1.5ct range.  My SO and I were looking for a center stone in that range, and then threw up in our mouths when we heard the price of just the stone, without the setting!  Also, I have small fingers and a stone of that size looked silly on me haha.  But hey, if it’s what you want/can afford, go for it!

I think the cushion cuts might be a bit cheaper than round cut, but probably not by much, especially in the carat weight you’re looking at.  I also am preferring solitaires to halos.  I think halos are BEAUTIFUL, but I’m seeing them everywhere and they’re becoming like white noise to me.  Solitaires are so classic!

Happy hunting!  Can’t wait for an update :o)

Post # 12
2825 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: April 2012

I have a cushion cut halo and I love it. 🙂  I think you get more bang for your buck with a halo, because smaller center stones look bigger in a halo.

I was engaged previously and the first engagement ring’s center stone was a hair bigger than the one I currently have (princess cut) but looked tiny:

Post # 13
11325 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2011

I would go no-halo if I were you. First, you pay more for the setting and that money can be invested into a bigger stone. Second, I fear that halos are a trend that you might get tired of. I think they’re beautiful, but I don’t know that I’d still love it as much in 30 years, ya know? It was important to me that my ring be somewhat timeless, and I’m just not sure that halos aren’t going to be easily identifiable as coming from the early 2000’s. 

As for round v. cushion… its really your call. If you want to get some idea as to size I’d put your budget into bluenile.com and look at the size of each stone (it gives you the mm measurements). I have cushion cut stone and I love it because its classic but just a little unexpected. 

Post # 14
432 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

I can’t really help you pick as i think all those options are great, but here is a size chart from Blue Nile so you can see how a 1ct Round is against a 1ct Cushion.


If that doesn’t load here is another i found ^^


Just remember that is probably an average, Since they determine Carat based on weight (So if its cut deep it’ll weight more and be a bigger Carat weight but look smaller on top – If that makes sense)

Post # 16
448 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: November 2011

@FutureMrsMesser: Hi rounds don’t necessarily look larger, that’s not true. Secondly only you can pick out the ring you like best. That being said pave and micropave require a lot of maintanence and cleaning. You can get a cushion cut that looks nice and large just pay attention to the length to width and carat weight. I’d suggest doing some research on blue nile.

The topic ‘Engagement Ring Dilemma!’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors