Seriously, people are living out some fantasy of hyper glamour via their wedding ring or engagement ring. If it was a ring you’d wear on extremely special occasions and never elsewhere, then sure, going extra fancy at the cost of structural integrity could be justified. But a ring you intend on wearing EVERY DAY? No, this kind of ring needs to be conservative. Its longevity is so much more relevant for this reason.
Why not choose a ring with both qualities? Structurally sound *and* fancy? I’m sure there are plenty of glamorous styles out there that maintain their structural integrity 🧐
My husbands a tradesman, so when we picked out my ring, he vetoed a couple of styles based on structural integrity haha definitely grateful of his knowledge
Yeah bc knowing about the structure & durability is very important when it comes to jewelry. I’ve done the same w/family & friends (was a bench jeweler). I even talked my sis out of a ring she liked for her 2nd marriage. Bc I KNEW she would lose a dia. 🙂
I have learned so much from you! I am a jewelry and gemstone addict and know more than the average person but you have taught me valuable information with your videos
I managed to bend and warp my platinum engagement band, which is pretty thin for the size of my stone. But at least there’s no pave diamonds anywhere, lol. I dislike them anyway. To be fair, the ring is decades old and I’m a very active person in a wheelchair. Because I never take my ring off, it has rubbed against my metal wheelchair rim every single move I make. The engraving on the back of the band has worn off as well.
@@chickenanon That’s how I’m going to look at my egg-shaped ring with a worn out pattern in places from now on - I’ve customized it. That’s brilliant, thank you!
I hope more people learn that cocktail rings are not the structural standard to which your engagement ring should be held. Cocktail rings are worn on occasion and you can just pay attention to make sure you don't lose the stone if it fails structurally. Your engagement ring, though, is worn everyday and basically becomes a part of you. You may not notice at the time if you lose the stone. Best to get a slightly beefier build than have to keep buying replacement stones, particularly if they're large and you have an unwarranted distaste for synthetic diamond.
I appreciate the advice on band thickness! Could you do a thinner band if you increase the height? For example, would a 1.6mm x 2mm be structurally sound like a 1.8x1.8mm?
I love the leaf prongs tho! Would the design make it less sturdy tho? I imagine it would since it involves engraving, but I not actually knowledgeable lol
If you want the prongs to be in that petal-like style, then I believe it's fine as long as it's not pavé. So no small stones in the prongs. Solid metal prongs are more sturdy, but I think the petal-like design would be very elegant without the small stones too. :)
Can you elaborate on the first one (pavé prongs)? In a different short you listed 5 ways to make your ring more durable and the first one shown (the ren oval) had diamonds in the prongs. Do the tulip prongs negate the durability lost from the pavé setting? I’m just curious because I love the look of tulip prongs with diamonds, but I don’t want to risk loosing the my diamond.
I still wouldn’t love to recommend it for a forever ring because at a certain point, stones or no stones, if the band is thin it will warp just on its own. Just depends on your goals. If you’re planning to reset it in 5-10 years, you can probably get away with more. If you want an heirloom quality piece, I’d still go with something 1.8 or more for even a stone under a carat.
@@camillebradley2942 having a very small ring size does improve the proportions. I think 1.8 for a 2.75 size 4.5 would be ok, 👍🏼 just wear it with care!
