Post # 1
so I am wanting my upgrade to be my last e-ring I had one but the more I looked at it the more I wasn’t in love with it. I had it resized but still felt like it didn’t give me the finger coverage I was wanting. So it went back; and I’m looking again. I keep going back to 3 stone rings but when I saw this ring I instantly loved it and look at the video daily. But starting to wonder if it’s too blingy? What are your thoughts?
There is a video as the last photo.
This is the 3 stone ring.
Post # 2
a three stone ring will always be classic and beautiful. I think clusters tend to lean towards looking a little cheap to me, like *more bling for your buck* was the goal more than a classic style..? With the exception of those flower clusters that look kind of vintage, those are lovely. That’s just my opinion though.
Post # 3
- Wedding: August 2017 - Orange County, CA
I love the three-stone ring! The Neil Lane has too much going on for my taste. I dislike the princess-cut with a halo and those baguette side stones look out of place. Agree with PP and it looks too busy and “cheap”
Post # 4
I don’t think the neil lane is too “blingy” but I definitely prefer the 3 stone.
Post # 5
3-stone hands down for me.
Post # 6
I think the Neil lane looks like a cluster ring, which I’m not a huge fan of as they are usually quite blingy but cheap, I don’t mean to offend anyone who has one, but I personally think they look quite tacky. I would always go for solitaire over a cluster as they look more classy and expensive imo.
Post # 7
Definitely a fan of the 3 stone. The Neil Lane isn’t doing it for me. It’s not too bling, necessarily. Just too busy and kind of cheap looking.
Post # 8
- Wedding: March 2014 - Chicago, IL
Echoing PPs – not a fan of the Neil Lane, but I love that 3 stone. Classic and beautiful – and it will give you great finger coverage!
Post # 9
Both are nice. The 3 stone is more generic. I’m a fan of vintage. I like the Neil Lane, it has a Victorian vibe to me.
Post # 10
I completely agree with pearfectprincess :
, no offense to anyone who has a cluster or the type of ring in the video. I don’t know if I would say “too much bling” per se but it just looks cheap and kind of 80s. But take my opinion with a grain of salt, because I also don’t like most halos or diamonds on the band. I tend to prefer plain bands so you can actually see and appreciate the stones.
Post # 11
Their “sale price” is a lot of money for a ring with such a small center stone. My friend has a 3 stone that looks just like the photo and it’s really nice and looks good on her. You can always bling it up with an eternity band. My friend actually paired it up with a 4 stone diamond wedding band almost exactly like mine which I thought was awesome and looked great with her e-ring.
Long story short: the 3 stone, definitely.
Post # 12
I prefer the 3 stone ring, and I would work with a local jeweler instead of Kay.
Post # 13
The three stone is 100% a classic/timeless look. IMO, rings like the Neil Lane with all that “extra” seem like they are trying too hard/over-compensating…even halos that are poorly done/not to scale/double and triple halo/too prong-ey/split shank with pave, etc. give me that impression. Don’t get me wrong, I think a nicely done halo and/or nicely done pave can be lean towards more classic/timeless, but I think too often they are not well executed for the sake of the extra bling and detract from the center diamond/overall look rather than enhance it. Just my opinion though. Plenty of people love that “extra” look. Of course, you can bling up a three stone (or a solitaire) with a nice blingy band. To each his own.
Post # 14
I have a 3 stone ring, just like your picture but in yellow gold. I love it, it’s classic.
Post # 15
Love the three-stone look, and agree with PPs that it will always be in style. Another option would be pear or baguette side stones if you want even more finger coverage.