Post # 1
I have decided that I would rather have a low profile ring. In researching this I have come across some terminology however I am sure there has to be more. In discussing my ideas with designers or searching for idea online I have come up with the following:
Obviously a channel or pave is low profile. Does anyone know any other search terms/terminology for a low profile setting?
Post # 3
Most halos are high set so that the center diamond gets more light. Also cathedral settings tend to be high set. Channel/pave doesn’t indicate the height of the setting, just that there are stones in the band.
Post # 4
Im not sure about terminology but a low setting was my first priority. This is the ring that I chose: http://boards.weddingbee.com/topic/e-ring-wedding-band-advice-newbie The stone does not sit much higher than the band and it has 8 prongs so it’s more secure and less likely to snag. I think smaller center stones or a few smaller stones are easier to set lower than a big center stone.
Post # 5
I think you can have pretty much any kind of ring created with a low setting, especially if it’s custom made. IMO a nice jeweler will never set a stone up high because it’s not secure and looks quite dated. When I emphasized this to my jeweler, he was practically offended by the idea of setting a stone high but maybe I was just lucky!
Post # 6
@redrose68: I love bezel set and semi bezel (which i think is another term for open bezel?) set rings and I’ll preach it to just about anyone who’ll listen haha. My ring’s a bezel set solitaire, pretty low profile and no prongs to snag on anything. I know they’re not everyone’s cup of tea, but if you like the more modern look of them then I totally suggest going with one of those settings. Just make sure the bottom is open so light can get to the diamond (or other stone). I know there are also “gypsy” settings (I think they have a more common name but I can’t think of it right now) generally for smaller diamonds in a band and tension settings as well that can be made pretty low profile. Good luck!
Post # 7
@redrose68: I wanted the same thing as you, and what I have found is that the stone size matters more than (or at least as much as) the design. I’m getting a 1-1.5 ct stone, so no matter what it is going to be raised off my finger. The best way to minimize this is to get the stone set flush into the metal (in a full bezel), but then the band must be at least the same width as the stone (big & chunky, no thank you). So if you want *very* low profile, you need to get a smaller stone.
I found that there are “low profile” prong settings, and there are bezels that have the stone set high. So there doesn’t really seem to be a general term for low settings (though you’ll probably more easily find low-set bezels).
Maybe try a few different inexpensive settings and see how you like them? I just bought this ring to try out (it’s nearly identical to one of my top setting picks), and I can’t believe how comfortable it is to wear! Unexpectedly high quality, too. (:
Here are two other low settings I am considering: http://www.moissaniteco.com/round-moissanite-6prong-basket-cathedral-solitaire-ring-p-8263.html
Post # 8
Wait, sorry, I’m confused about that first part you said….I have a 1.5ct diamond in a full bezel but my band is only 2mm wide? Do you mean a flush mount “gypsy” setting instead of a full bezel?
Post # 9
Yes yes my mistake! That’s what I meant.
Post # 10
if you do not have your heart set on a certain cut yet be sure to check some of the irreguar ones. I have a rose cut diamond (which is flat on the bottom) They were able to set it almost completely flush against the band in a bezel setting and it is about the lowest profile thing in the world becuase the stone is flat. I love it! It is a sizeable stone at 1.52 cts though so you don’t always have to compromise size and height.
When we were ring shopping there was one emerald cut that I saw like this, and I haven’t seen it in person but I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) Some cushion cuts are flatter on the bottom too and you could do this. If you were worried about the amount of light getting behind the stone to cause sparkel you could do this with an open bezel where they don’t seal the bottom of the stone. You can find my ring all over this website so i won’t bother to post it again but it is seriously almost completely flat.
Post # 11
I just wanted to second what globalmargaret
said. Some shapes are shallower, and therefor will decrease the total height of the ring. Other shapes are deeper and will increase the height of a ring. It depends on the specific stone, but in general emeralds, marquises, and ovals will have have a short height and a large table. I know asschers are a very deep cut stone. You can kind of see the difference more in the second picture.