1.70ct Three Stone Old Cut Diamond Ring

Marsoni

M251S

$1782.50

Get it in 3 business days with 1 day shipping. Friday, May 29

1.70ct Three Stone Old Cut Diamond RingA beautiful 18ct white gold c. 1940 old cut diamond ring set with three large old cut diamonds totalling approximately 1. 70cts. The diamonds face up white and are nice and clean. The ring has large finger presence and would make the perfect engagement ring. Stamped and tested as 18ct gold. UK size R US size 8 5 8 The side diamonds are approximately 0. 45cts each and the central diamond is approximately 0. 80cts. They are estimated to be J K colour

Easy Shipping

Quick Dispatch:

Your 1.70ct Three Stone Old Cut Diamond Ring orders ship within 1-2 business days.

Delivery Options:

Standard: 3-7 business days
Fast: 2-3 business days
Express: 1-2 business days

Order Tracking:

You'll receive a tracking link by email once your 1.70ct Three Stone Old Cut Diamond Ring ships.

Need Help?
Questions about 1.70ct Three Stone Old Cut Diamond Ring, sizing, or delivery? We're just an email away.

Live Shipping Estimates:
Enter your location at checkout to see available shipping methods and costs for 1.70ct Three Stone Old Cut Diamond Ring in your area.

Get Shipping Estimates

Country Zip/Postal Code

Exchange/Return Notes

We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy

Super comfy, soft and thin. For reference, I'm 5'6", 135, athletic build. I bought medium. I almost returned them because I thought they were a bit too snug on my thighs, and my thighs are not large at all. I was concerned about panty lines under snug clothing. But, because they're thin, I figured they would probably stretch, so I kept them. So far, I've only worn them under a night shirt, but they're super comfortable and they dont ride up at all. Very nice, but if your thighs are a little thick, you probably won't like them.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on August 29, 2025

Verified Purchase

Shanna

Grantham, US

★★★★★ 5

Functional + Sexy

Size: Small, Color: Multicoloured E-(5-pack), Size: Small, Color: Multicoloured E-(5-pack)

Not only do these feel good, my husband can’t keep his hands off me. They fit so good and are soft. I change into these to sleep but also just use them as shorts to wear around the house. They’re comfortable and don’t slide around. I got a size small and I’m 100lbs.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on April 13, 2026

Verified Purchase

ClairY

Belleville, US

★★★★★ 5

Finally!

Size: X-Large, Color: All Black D (5-pack)

Finally, comfortable underwear that don’t end up giving me a wedgie. I have a round booty and most cuts of underwear end up shifting as I walk and sit. The hem of the underwear comes right under my cheeks and the lightweight material ensures there’s no panty line and no shifting to where I don’t want them! I’m definitely purchasing more.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on May 17, 2026

Verified Purchase

Amazon Customer

Massapequa, US

★★★★★ 3

Ehh

Size: Medium, Color: Multicoloured E-(5-pack)

Very thin, still comfy but very thin material. Super soft though. I've worn and washed and they have held up but I won't be repurchasing bc these are so thin

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on April 14, 2026

Verified Purchase

Grma4m&m

Cuba, US

★★★★★ 5

They’re fantastic!!!!

Size: X-Large, Color: Multicoloured E-(5-pack)

My clothing size is 16/18 and XL. Even though Amazon suggested a size XXL, I ordered my normal XL and they fit perfectly. The fabric for this style is 92% bamboo viscose and is amazingly soft and almost silky feeling. I had ordered a different boy short in this brand but they were 80% bamboo viscose and the fabric was significantly heavier. I returned those and ordered these.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on April 25, 2026