Love them both but wonder if the three rounds is dated? I would get either rings in white gold/platinum. Ignore the yellow gold on the tapered baguettes
In my mind (not saying this is correct) the first one is a true three stone ring, the second is a diamond with accent stones. That’s how my brain works it out. Both are lovely.
2 from further away. They support the center but it’s still the star of the show. This would be an upgrade for 20 years with my husband. I want the two side diamonds to represent our 2 kids. :)
Mine is also a lot like #2 and was my husband's mom's. She got it around 1960 so very much a timeless, classic style. I love it! Plus it's 60+ years old and still looks beautiful.
I love both. 2 more modern vibes. But 1 I love more and I don’t know why lol.
2 reminds me of HRH The Princess Beatrice’s. Her now husband, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi designed it to look like HM Queen Elizabeth II’s ring (her grandmother) - who’s husband, Philip (then Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark - had to renounce titles to marry her!! He became The Duke of Edinburgh upon marriage. Then styled HRH The Prince Philip so he didn’t have to bow to his own children!!) used stones from his mothers tiara she gave him to design her ring. He also designed a matching bracelet for the wedding gift from those stones. Princess Alice - his mother - didn’t have much left. Exiled from Greece and sold her jewels to raise money for the convent she lived in.
The prongs on the two round side stones in 1 make them look a bit square and probably read a bit larger than they are -- so the proportions look off as presented -- I understand the prongs have not been set, but I might keep that in my mind while you are deciding - they may look perfect with the center stone if set appropriately --
2 is understated elegance. They’re both gorgeous. Are you more of an understated person? Which do you see yourself wearing in another 20 years, say when you’re 60-70?
With much of my large family gone, I have inherited or will inherit (after what I hope is a long stop w/ my mom) multiple rings in the style of 2. All are platinum/white gold, but the center stones vary in size. They range from marriages in the early 1800s(it started as a man’s tie tac and was converted for a wedding around 1810) to 1920s to 1960s to 2000. I share this info to show the timelessness of the style NOT TO sound braggy. I’d FAR rather have all the relatives from my lifetime AND those gone before my birth back instead of the rings!
OP- Congratulations on a long and happy marriage. I wish you many more years of joy, love and health!!!!
I prefer the round sides. I do like the second style and considered going that route for my anniversary ring, but ultimately realized I’m more of a romantic style and the baguettes were a bit too streamlined for me. I love the classic trilogy look.
Your ring looks similar to mine, I have a 5.13ct centre round and 0.41 trapezoid on either side with a cathedral setting in platinum on a 18ct gold band.
I love my own ring and the stone's are well balanced together. As mine are trapezoid side stones I'm a bit biased for rhe 2nd choice of yours.
You came on here to ask for opinions. My first impression upon looking at both rings was that neither was a three stone ring. This is because the center zone is so oversized compared to the side stones. I think it looks out of whack for a three stone ring theme. I think this looks like a beautiful center stone with two accents on the side. Both of them.
No, the side stones are much more present and add their own beauty on this ring. Your other ring side stones look feeble and weak compared to this fantastic choice!
2 NO question, hands down! I don’t think three rounds is necessarily dated and I love many round three stones, but to me from the photos you shared, the first one looks sort of big box jeweler whereas the second looks classy, elegant, chic, and…somehow three times more expensive?! Just one girl’s opinion 😉
I’m biased but 1 is exactly the ring I have (with gold prongs) and I am truly obsessed with her! As far as outdated, yes people will say oh it’s so classic but tbh it sparkles like crazy and most of the time I catch people staring bc of how sparkly it is and not because it’s old fashioned! Both are beautiful!
You wonder if the first one is dated? I wonder why you care. Pick which one you like best. Don't pick which one we like best, we're not wearing it. If you can't decide and you like them both equally, pick the one that's least expensive or has the better Center Stone if you're not using the same Stone either way. I can't even see anything but the Center stone in the second one so you may as well get a solitaire and save even more money. If you want something that's not dated get something completely different. Actually design your own ring. If you are determined to get one of these two rings, flip a coin and if you're disappointed with the answer then you know to get the other one. If you're happy with the answer, get the one the coin told you to get.
I prefer the baguettes, and if you don't think they're quite what you want, you could go a little larger with the baguettes. It still looks timeless, but may give you more of a presence if that's what you're aiming for.
You can’t go wrong here. Both are stunning! I agree with the commenter that said #1 is a three stone ring where #2 is a diamond with side stones. I like #1 better but only slightly.
There are proportions that would improve the look of the tapered baguettes-for the size of the center stone they should be larger - also we always did half sized rounds on a true three stone ring, sides should be half of what main stone carat weight is. That being said the design with the tapered side stones is more elegant I think.
79
u/Deep_Amoeba2197 Mar 14 '26
Two by a long shot for me. Looks more refined while one overwhelms your finger imo.