Post # 1
I have a decision to make…a 0.3-carat solitaire engagement ring, or a 3-stone ring (0.6 carat)?
Of course, the typical answer is the more the better! But personally I’m not very bling and so something simple and understated suits me well. I’m active, so I need something low profile. I’m also environmentally conscious and I reeeally like the idea of recycling ring components, and having a piece with history.
In anticipation of a proposal my partner got his mother’s 3-stone engagement ring (which was passed down by his grandmother) so that we could re set it. This is perfect! It’s old, it’s recycled, it has history. The two smaller stones (.15 carat, miner’s cut) are low quality but charming. The middle stone (0.3 carat) was replaced via insurance so it is brilliant cut S2.
But, if I go with a solitaire, it’ll be small (0.3 carat only), and apparently the jeweler doesn’t want to melt down and use the old gold (it’s 14k white gold), so none of the heirloom materials will be used, which is part of what I find romantic about all this jazz. Alternatively, I could get a 3 stone ring- but would it be too bling? Either way, the band will be thin – 2 mm max… I want something dainty.
So… what would you do? Go for the 3 stone ring & keep the history, or the 0.3-carat solitaire?
If you have 0.3 carat ring photos or photos of dainty 3-stone rings please share! If you do, I’d love to know the carat size and your ring size for comparison!
Post # 3
I think it would be really nice to have those history pieces! Plus I don’t think they will add too much bling to it, I’m sure it will still be dainty. But then again you could always use the side stones in a different piece of jewelry!
Post # 4
I thought I wanted a three stone ring until I tried them on! Personally I like the look of a solitaire. Here are my pictures of my ring for comparison. The center stone is .34 carats and my ring size is 5.5:
Hope this helps! Not sure if it’s an official “solitaire” because it doesn’t have a plain band, but it’ll help for size comparison purposes! More is sometimes better, but if it’s more and you look at it everyday wishing it were a solitaire then it’s no good!
Post # 5
I personally prefer a solitaire over a 3 stone ring.
Post # 6
I love simple solitaires! Go with your heart!
Post # 7
I prefer solitaires over 3 stone rings, but I love the backstory to yours, so that might sway me in the decision.
Post # 8
Hold on OP, with the solitaire would you be using the middle stone from the other ring or no? Sorry, I’m a little confused!
Post # 9
Well I will be the different bee in the hive. I love 3-stone rings! I think they are a little more unique and don’t have the high profile most solitares have. Also, 3-stone rings have so much SPARKLE!!!!!! Here is my dainty 3-stone. The middle stone is .2ct and the tw is .5.
Post # 10
I think the 3 stone will be the better choice for you for all the reasons you listed. A 3 stone is much more practical to wear on a daily basis. My original e-ring is a composite flower, the setting is similar to a solitaire and that type of ring does get caught on stuff. My 2nd e-ring which I got for our 4th anniversary (since we now are 4!)is a dainty 3 stone and I love it. Here it is:
The center ruby is 0.21 carat I think and the two diamonds are each .08 I think. My finger is a size 5. The ruby represents me and my husband (both of ours birthstone) and each princess cut diamond represent a daughter (*princess, lol) For me, it really makes a big difference that the ring has some meaning behind it, I really love that about my 3 stone, that I have my little family represented!
I think it would be so cool to have an heirloom ring or an e-ring pieced together like you describe from family diamonds! I would have loved that but sadly no one in my family ever had any nice jewelry, lol.
I do switch it up and sometimes wear the spare e-ring on my right hand. Maybe that is your third option? To get a solitaire ring as an anniversary gift or some other occasion, birth of a child, etc. Sorry for the long rambling on, lol, hope it was helpful nonetheless
Post # 11
@savery: I prefer solitaires over 3 stone but because of the history I would keep the 3 stone.
Post # 12
I would go with the 3-stone because it will make the ring look a little bigger. Nothing wrong with a small ring/stone, but personally I would want to play it up a bit and I think the 3-stone would do that. Plus it has more sentimental value! I don’t think 0.6 total ct weight will be blingy at all.
Post # 13
I voted 3 stone. I have a small 3 stone ring as a pinky ring and I think it’s super sweet 🙂
I think it’s about the size you’re describing
Post # 14
Here’s another picture that I think gives better perspective on size – I think it’s very delicate size not too blingy at all
Post # 15
I’d do three stone due to the history. My ring is an heirloom with a new diamond and I even felt bad about resizing it. Plus the old formula for white gold is lovely, my wedding band is old 14K white gold and it doesn’t at all different from the platinum e-ring.
You would probably not have to worry about redipping as often either with the old 14K white gold. Just make sure that your not allergic to the nickle in it!!
Post # 16
I love 3 stone rings, most especially with small stones, I think it’s the perfect combination. (Like @magglemay-2013‘s- awesome!) And I think it’s super cool to have a ring with history!
ETA: @Mrs.danish: I love the symbolism of your ring, that’s so sweet! (And also such a pretty ring!)