The millimetres are already decided
A well-cut 1.00 ct round brilliant is about 6.5 mm across. No setting will make it 7. The spread of the stone is fixed the moment you pick the stone, and every question below is really about the frame you put around those 6.5 mm.That is not a consolation prize. The eye has no idea what 6.5 mm is, so it judges the stone against whatever is next to it: the width of the band, the metal lying over the edge, how far the stone stands off the finger, and whether there is more diamond immediately beside it. Those are all things a setting decides, and some of them move the reading a long way.
The short answer, before the detailA halo, then a thin band. A halo is the only setting that adds real diamond, and a fine band flatters the centre by giving the eye something small to measure it against. Everything else on this page is worth tenths of a millimetre, and one of them (a heavy bezel) works against you.
What setting makes a diamond look bigger
Here is one 1.00 ct round, 6.5 mm across, in the six settings people actually choose between. Every head is drawn at the same millimetre scale, on a band drawn at its real width.
One 1.00 ct round, six settings, one scaleFace-up view. The number under each drawing is the width of diamond a hand can see, and how that compares with the band beneath it.Band widths and rim dimensions are the ones our bench works to on a 6.5 mm round; other workshops sit a little either side of them. The widths printed under each drawing are worked out from those figures, not estimated alongside them, so the picture and the numbers cannot drift apart.
The halo is not close. Ringing the stone with 1.2 mm accents takes the diamond from 6.5 mm across the finger to 8.9, and it does it for a fraction of what another carat and a half of centre stone would cost. Be honest with yourself about what you are getting, though: you can see the joins, and nobody mistakes a haloed one carat for a two and a half. Our own rule at the bench is that a good halo buys the impression of roughly half a carat more centre stone. That is still the best value on this page.The second lever costs nothing at all. Take the band from 2 mm to 1.4 and the stone goes from three and a bit times the width of the metal to four and a half times. The diamond has not changed. A knife edge, where the band tapers to a ridge along its top, pushes the same effect a little further because there is less flat metal facing up next to the stone. This is the cheapest apparent-size trick in jewellery and the one people most often talk themselves out of, usually because a fine band feels less substantial in the hand.Four claws, 2 mm band6.5 mm of diamond across3.3 times the band widthThe baseline everything else on this page is measured against.
Six claws, 2 mm band6.5 mm of diamond across3.3 times the band widthTwo more tongues of metal on the edge. The outline of the stone is untouched.
Four claws, knife edge6.5 mm of diamond across4.6 times the band widthSame stone, thinner band. Nothing about the diamond changed and it reads larger.
Thin bezel6.2 mm of diamond across4.1 times the band widthA fine rim on a fine band. Costs three tenths of a millimetre and buys back contrast.
Heavy bezel5.8 mm of diamond across2.6 times the band widthThe only setting here that genuinely takes width off the stone.
Pavé halo, 1.2 mm accents8.9 mm of diamond across4.9 times the band widthThe one lever that adds real diamond rather than rearranging the frame.
Where the free size isA 1.4 mm band costs less gold than a 2 mm one and makes the same stone read wider. It is the only lever on this page that gives you apparent size and money back at once. The trade is durability: a very fine band wears thinner over decades and is more easily bent out of round, so 1.4 mm is about as fine as we would go on a ring worn every day.
Below the stone, the basket and gallery do quieter work. A hidden gallery or an open basket lets light in under the girdle instead of bouncing it off a solid plate, so the lower half of the stone stays bright and the outline stays crisp. It is the difference between a stone that looks like it is floating and one that looks stuck to a cup. Worth asking for by name, because it is invisible in photographs and obvious in the hand.Then height. A stone lifted clear of the finger catches light from the side and casts a shadow, and both read as size.Same stone, three profiles
A cathedral profile sits at much the same height as a raised solitaire but brings arches of metal up to the head, which shade the bottom of the stone and put more gold in the same photograph. It is the more romantic silhouette and the slightly less flattering one for size. A plain raised shank does the same job with nothing next to the stone.Claw count comes last for a reason. Four claws leave more of the girdle open than six, which is true and worth about what you would expect: the outline of the stone is identical either way, and only the little tongues of metal on the edge differ. Choose the count for security and how much you want to think about the ring, not for size. We set out the full argument in how ring settings work.Raised solitaireThe head sits on top of a plain band, lifting the girdle clear of the finger. Light enters from the sides; the ring stands proud of the hand.
CathedralArches sweep up from the shoulders to meet the head. Similar height, more metal on show, and the arches shade the lower half of the stone.
Low-setThe stone drops down towards the band. Snags less on jumpers and gloves, sits flatter under a wedding band, catches less light from the side.
Does a bezel setting make a diamond look smaller?
Yes, a little, and how little depends entirely on one dimension nobody quotes you: how far the rim leans over the girdle. Here is the same 6.5 mm round held four ways, magnified, with the metal drawn at the thickness a bench would actually make it.
The half bezel is the compromise we suggest most often: metal on the two sides the shank arrives from, open top and bottom, so the length of the stone is untouched.A bezel also does something for the stone that no claw setting can. It protects the girdle completely, which matters most on exactly the stones cut for maximum spread, because those have the thinnest girdles and are the hardest to hold in claws. If you have chosen a wide, shallow stone to get every millimetre out of the weight, a bezel is the setting that keeps it in one piece.
The same stone, four ways of holding itFace-up view, magnified. Grey is metal lying over the girdle, so the pale area is the diamond a hand can see.Overlap and wall thicknesses are the ones our bench works to on a 6.5 mm round, and other workshops sit either side of them; no published Australian figures for rim thickness exist. The claw figure also assumes each tip covers about 1.35 mm of girdle, which is a sturdy claw: a finer one narrows the gap between claws and a thin bezel until the two are level. Everything printed under each drawing is worked out from those millimetres. The equivalent weight is the round that shows the same face-up area of diamond, which is a fair way to compare exposure and not a claim about what the ring is worth.
The surprise is at the left. Four claws hide about eight per cent of the stone's face, because a claw tip has to lean half a millimetre over the girdle to hold anything, and a fine bezel wall only leans a seventh of a millimetre. The bezel does it all the way round and still lands within a per cent of the claws. So the claim that a bezel makes a diamond look smaller is true of one bezel and not the other, and the variable is the maker rather than the style.The heavy rim is where the reputation comes from. A third of a millimetre of metal, all the way round, takes a fifth of the face of the stone and leaves a one carat showing about as much diamond as a 0.71 ct. That is a real cost and you can see it across a table. It is also entirely avoidable, and it is the single most useful thing to ask about before you commission a bezel.One honest complication. A bezel adds metal outside the girdle as well as over it, so the head as a whole is no smaller than a claw head, and often larger. What shrinks is the diamond inside the frame. Whether that reads as a smaller stone or a more deliberate ring is taste, and plenty of people who care about size choose a bezel anyway because it gives them the finest band they can wear.Four claws8 per cent of the face under metalShows as much diamond as a 0.89 ctA claw tip leans further over the stone than any bezel wall does. It only does it in four places.
Half bezel7 per cent of the face under metalShows as much diamond as a 0.89 ctMetal on the two sides the shank arrives from, with the girdle left open in between. The compromise we suggest most often.
Thin bezel, knife edge9 per cent of the face under metalShows as much diamond as a 0.87 ctAll the way round, and still within a per cent of four claws. This is the bezel worth paying a good bench for.
Heavy bezel20 per cent of the face under metalShows as much diamond as a 0.71 ctWhere the reputation comes from. A third of a millimetre of rim, all the way round, is visible.
Is a bezel setting more expensive?
Against a four-claw solitaire, usually yes: about forty per cent more for a half bezel and half again as much for a full one. Against heavy pavé work, no, and not closely. Here is where the money goes.
What each setting costs to makeAn index, not prices, with a four-claw solitaire set to 100.Our own workshop figures for the same 18 ct band and the same 1.00 ct centre stone, which is excluded from every row. The halo row includes its accent diamonds. No published Australian survey of setting labour exists to check these against, so read them as the shape of the difference rather than a price list, and expect any individual quote to move with the maker and the stone.
Two things drive it. The first is obvious: a rim is more gold than four claws. The second is the one people underestimate. A claw head comes in standard sizes and a bench seats a stone into it. A bezel wall has to be fitted to the girdle of one individual stone, and a girdle is never a perfect circle, so the wall is cut, burnished and re-checked until the metal sits tight the whole way round with no gap and no daylight. That is skilled hand work measured in hours, and it is why two bezels at very different prices look like the same ring in a photograph and nothing like each other under a loupe.There is a later cost as well. Resizing a bezel-set ring is harder than resizing a claw solitaire, because the head is structurally part of the band rather than sitting on it, and re-setting the stone into something else later means making a new rim rather than opening four claws. If you are the sort of person who expects to redesign a ring in twenty years, that is worth knowing now.Metal
Bench time
Accent diamonds
Four-claw solitaire100
Set to 100. A head that comes in a standard size, seated and finished by hand.Six-claw solitaire105
Two more claws to cut, seat and polish. Barely a different number.Half bezel140
Two walls instead of a full rim, and only two arcs of girdle to fit exactly.Full bezel160
More metal, and a wall that has to follow the whole girdle of one particular stone.Pavé halo240
Twenty small seats cut by hand and twenty stones set level, which is half again as much as a full bezel.A bezel, weighed honestly
A half bezel gets you most of the protection and most of the look for roughly half the premium, because there are two arcs of girdle to fit rather than a full circle. If a full bezel is the ring you want and the quote has made you hesitate, it is the version worth asking about before you fall back to claws.What the money buys
The most protected girdle of any setting, with no tip to bend and nothing to catch on a jumper.
A ring you can wear gardening, climbing and washing up without thinking about it.
A clean modern line that photographs well and does not date to a particular decade.
A safer home for a stone with a very thin girdle, which is exactly the stone claws struggle with.
What it costs you
Around half again as much as a four-claw solitaire, with more of the increase in bench time than in gold.
Up to a fifth of the stone's face if the rim is heavy, and almost nothing if it is fine.
Less light entering from the side, so the stone reads a little quieter in dim rooms.
A harder ring to resize, and a rim that has to be remade if the stone is ever re-set.
The lever that beats every setting
It is not the setting, and we would rather say so than sell you a cleverer frame. The two decisions that move apparent size most are the shape of the stone and how well it is cut, and both are settled before a jeweller touches metal.
The same 1.00 ct, laid out three waysWell-proportioned stones, long axis up the finger, with the round set to 100 on area.Millimetre figures are the published averages for a well-cut 1.00 ct stone; any individual stone runs a few tenths either side, and elongated shapes vary most because length to width ratio is a matter of taste. Each area is worked out from the outline drawn above it.
All three of those stones weigh a carat and cover almost exactly the same area, and one of them reaches 10 mm up a finger where another reaches 6.5. That is a bigger difference than every setting choice on this page put together, and an oval or a marquise generally costs less per carat than the round does.The second half of it is cut, and this is where money quietly disappears. Carat is weight, not width, and a stone can carry its weight downwards in a deep pavilion where nobody will ever see it. Two stones can both say 1.00 ct on the report while one measures 6.5 mm across the top and the other 6.1. Four tenths of a millimetre does not sound like much. It is more than a fine bezel costs you, and unlike a bezel you have paid a full carat for it. Those measurements are printed on every grading report, which is the check: read them before you read the weight. Our guide to what $20,000 buys works through the same arithmetic in dollars, and how to choose a diamond shape covers what each outline gives up to get its length.Marquise10.0 × 5.0 mmArea 100
Oval7.7 × 5.7 mmArea 104
Round6.5 × 6.5 mmArea 100
What we would choose
If size is genuinely the priority: an elongated oval with good measurements, four claws, a 1.4 mm band and an open basket. That is the largest-reading ring you can build at a given weight without adding a single accent stone, and it costs less than the alternatives because there is less metal and less work in it.If size is the priority and the budget is fixed lower than you would like, a halo, without embarrassment. It is the only honest way to buy apparent size with money you do not have, and a well-made pavé halo on a modest centre stone is a better ring than a bare solitaire in the same money.
If you want a bezelAsk two questions before you commission it. How thick is the wall over the girdle, in millimetres, and is a half bezel an option. A fine rim costs you almost nothing in visible stone, a heavy one costs you close to a third of a carat, and the same jeweller will quote you either without volunteering which one you are getting.
And whatever the frame, spend the argument on the stone. A setting can flatter 6.5 mm or waste it. It cannot add a millimetre.Want to know what your stone would read as?Send us the measurements from the report, not the carat weight, and tell us the setting you have been shown. We will tell you how much of the stone you would actually see, and whether we would spend the difference on metal or on the diamond.
Online consult
