I'd like some input! I've been working on a project that will be considered an upgraded e-ring (I'm unsure whether I will wear it alone or pair it with a thin eternity band) and I have it narrowed down to two settings. This would be for a 7.5-8mm Asha, to be replaced with an Amora H&A down the road a bit.

Option #1: Split Shank from MoissCo. What I love about this one is the view of the stone from all angles. It's just lovely. (See the video on the MoissCo page.)

Option #2: Sholdt solitaire from Brian Gavin. I would actually NOT want the sidestones in the pic, I just used this one because the stone is bigger than what's pictured in the actual setting I'd get. I love how it tapers so gracefully. Here is a video!

DH says he likes #1 the best, but only by a little bit. He likes how well you can see the stone from any angle. I love them both, but with #1 I'd be slightly concerned about whacking it on things and damaging the stone. MoissCo has told me they can put an Asha into that setting. The Sholdt one is about twice as expensive.

Please contribute your thoughts! Thanks so much!

#2!

Hmmm. I'm not sure I like the sholdt twice as much given the disparity in pricing. I like sleek lines too and you really seem to prefer modern settings. Do you want to stick with prongs, or have you thought about bezels given your concern about whacking it?

I don't know! I prefer sholdt to the MoCo, but twice as much is a LOT.

What does your band look like? #1 would accommodate more stock wedding bands or eternity bands than #2 would. So, a qualified #1. Are you considering changing in the future or is this a forever ring? If you might upgrade, that's another point in #1's favor.

Hope this helps!

Do you plan to wear a band, I find it sometimes is difficult to find bands that compliment a split shank well. Therefore I voted for the other without the pave.

#1 has more character and individuality, so it wasn't hard for me to vote for that one.

Beyond the uniqueness, I also like it because I'm a flush fit girl... #1 will allow a band or two to sit flush, whereas #2 has a "bump out" at the prong basket that would push a band away and leave a gap. Some people prefer a gap, though.

DH is anti-bezel so that's not an option. I'm not unusually clumsy or anything, it just looks like the split shank one is really exposed. And yes...the pricing does make a person think.



I actually don't have a band right now (long story). If I did get one, I'd want something low-profile so as not to obscure the profile view of the stone. (like the MoCo low profile eternity) I'd like this to be a forever ring.



I'm undecided on whether to wear a band. I figured I would just get the ring and then see if I wanted to add anything. The split shank one has a greater chance of looking like two rings just on its own, I guess. I don't have strong feelings about the whole band thing.



Huh, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks so much for all the feedback, everyone! This is SO valuable and helpful. Keep it coming!

I really like the first one, but something about the thick band underneath the center stone just doesn't do it for me.

I would try to find another split shank setting if it were me. But maybe my concern isn't something you've thought about or care about, and in that case I say proceed with option 1.

I think the portion of the shank under the stone is also split, so that there is open space in the middle to match the open space on the shoulders. I'm getting that by looking at the video.

I like the first one because:

1. It is simple and elegant

2. It looks like you can wear a wedding band flush with it and I
prefer that look.

If you would like a bit of sparkle; I rather like the BTD's split shank ring:

http://betterthandiamond.com/products/Timeless-Duality-Ring.html

Best of luck.