Calling Halo Experts!

[HOUMedGal]

pic 2

 

[HOUMedGal]

pic 3

 

[HOUMedGal]

aaaand one more so you can see more of the sidestones straight on

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/16/2005 11:20:21 AM
Author: vizsla

my bf doesn''t like the halo either.. he says they look ''too busy'' - now, if by glittery, beautiful and perfect = too busy.. than so be it... HA!

Juts tell him the whole ring will end up nicer and cheaper with a halo setting. After all, this sort of settings are thought to make damonds look and feel substantial.

The classic cluster settings (with larger sidestones around the center) do the same - just with different proportions.

If you guys split the cost between center and setting, all for the better - with such a style the ring is bound to cost a bit. But the result is well worth it, IMO.

The more stones on the frame, the closer to the modern ''halo'' look... For some reason, there weren''t too many cluster rings around here - although they seem rather fashionable all over again. Hence this post and the picture below:

 

[MissAva]

This is my birthstone ring Thread.

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 9/17/2005 12:11:56 AM
Author: HOUMedGal
pic 2

That''s so pretty!

 

[hearts set]

Ahhhh...halos. My favorite topic!

So many great ones to check out on pricescope!

In person, they look FABULOUS!! I was worried about the cocktail ring look too....I''ve tried on a number (including ritani and tacori and my hands down fav...Peter Storm) and they just make the center stone pop!

They are so fun because the pave (melee name for the actual tiny stones) just dances and sparkles. They all made me smile.

My boyfriend was much more into the more simpler solitaires and thought PS pics of halos I showed him were too "gaudy"

That''s until we saw how perfect they are in person.

YOu have so much ahead of you, but can I suggest you call White Flash. With the thread that Ebree posted (hand shots of WF halos) I think you''d be pleasantly surprised with how fair they are.

Our budget was a bit more than yours (but not much, trust me) and they helped me get a fab center stone and the halo of my dreams for a price that made my boyfriend very happy.

Customer service was great.

Don''t forget that WF''s melee is ACA!! That just thrills me because that means extra sparkle. I can''t wait to get my ring. (it''s done, I''m just waiting for the proposal)

I''ll be sure to post pics.

Until then, have fun on your ring journey!!

 

[lovelylulu]

Can someone please explain or better yet post some photos that show these two methods of setting melee?


a) shared prong

b) bead-set

Many thanks

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/19/2005 1:31:10 PM
Author: lovelylulu
Can someone please explain or better yet post some photos that show these two methods of setting melee?

These all would be called ''pave'':

perhaps they look rather different, but as much as I can tell the finish of the wedding bands'' edges makes for much of the difference (if not all).

 

[valeria101]

All pave is ''bead set'' - inasmuch as small bits of metal (=beads) are reised to hold the girdle of the diamonds. The size of the diamonds set decice whether te piece is called ''micropave'', ''pave'' or ''bead set''. Micropave is the very tight version using diamonds at most 1pt (or so... ) and it is typically done under magnification. Now, anything can be done under a loupe just for the sake of the sport - so this is not necesarily the defining thing - although sometimes it is presented as such. Pave... dunno - somewhat larger - like the majority of pieces posted on Pricescope.

''Bead set'' describes larger diamonds (at least in the sense I use this wording - there may be otehrs) - where the stones are hold in place by prongs so short they could be called ''beads'' of metal. The diamonds could be large - up to half carat or more. Now, the short prongs only make sense if the girdle is resting on a surface of metal - so you get some rather old fashioned pieces set in this way - like the bow pin below:

 

[valeria101]

In those pave and bead set setting styles, neighbour diamonds do share some of the bits of metal ... but 'shared prong' settings are something else. As much as I can tell, the name reffers to a modern sort of eternity band made using semifinished castings and precisely calibrated diamonds. Very small or very large diamonds can be set- from less than 1pt on eternity bands less than 2mm wide to as much as one's finger can hold. Unlike pave, this sort of setting works only to get one row of diamonds - not to cover a surface. Round pendants or geometrical frames of one row of diamonds may be made this way too.

The two tricks that seem to make a difference would be: matching the size of the cast setting with the stones - which is not always done (if the diamonds are too small than the prongs are bent way too much over them, and if they are too large the girdles remain exposed to chips and wear from rubbing against stached rings - quite probable if the piece is a wedding band or engagement ring).


This is it...

This is one way of defining these names - at times, they get mixed up and used interchangeably by shops and adds, so it is important to know what sort of thing you are after and then figure out how the particular shop calls it

It is the case with many jewelry technicals, as much as I can tell.

Sure enough - there are more detailed versions done with larger stones, basket style, graduated ones or what not.




Just my 0.2, as usual.

 

[MINE!!]

I know that I may be in the wrong ''color'' catagory.. for the diamond thing, but here are my two cents. I LOVE the halo setting. I know that you can see some of the metal around the outside of my diamonds. They are 1 pointers but do a lot to bring out the bank in the stone. I also have the stone prong set and lifted above my halo... which makes it more prominent... IMO... but maybe it does just for me. I liked the bezel set.. but once I tried it on next to a halo prong.. it just didn''t do as much fo rme personally.

 

[Bagpuss]

I bought this Russian chromium diopside and diamond ring recently. It has what I'd call a shared prong diamond halo.

The diamonds are tiny (around 1pt each) and are held in place by four prongs which also hold the next diamond. The two prongs on the inner edge are taller than the pair on the outer edge and they also hold the garnet in place. The prongs are quite tiny. There is no edge of metal, millgrained or smooth, around the outer edge of the halo.

I find this style of setting very pretty and very safe. There's very little metal on show, but all the stones are held very securely.

I've always thought of the term 'pave' as referring to a large number of diamonds covering a metal background, usually bead set, but covering quite a large area - literally 'a pavement of diamonds' - not just one line of diamonds, but I could be wrong!

 

[vizsla]

BAGPUSS!!!!
that''s the exact look i love! and with an oval no less! this style is soooo similar to the tacori that i like.. if it''s not too much trouble could you post a side view? i love the tacori, but am not sold on the profile.. i''d love to see the way your ring looks.
thanks so much!

also.. if you don''t mind me asking.. what size is your center stone.. i''m having a hard time visualizing what size center stone looks best with various sizes of stones on the halo. i think your proportions look ideal!

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't have a side view handy at this moment but I can get you one by tomorrow night. But I can tell you that the table of the diopside stone is almost flush with the halo because of the way it is set. Most centre stones in halos are usually prong set and raised up or bezel set, but set quite low down. This setting means the body of the centre stone is almost all below the level of the halo. All you really see is the top of the stone.

Here are the specs:
The 10mm head has one central oval-cut 8mm by 6mm Russian diopside, surrounded by 20 single cut diamonds, set in rhodium plated claws. The diopside is held in place by the claws that secure the diamonds. The shoulders of the ring are a cathedral style. Total gem weight: diamond: 0.12 carat, diopside: 1.02 carats.
(Sorry, I got the diamond size wrong in my earlier post, they are about half a point each not a whole point.)

I guess the mm measurements/carat weights of the centre stone, wouldn't be the same for a diamond, but you could work out the proportions you'd need for yourself.

I like the way the tiny row of white white diamonds and prongs just frame the deep green stone and sort of define it, without overpowering it at all.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bagpuss]

Here are the photos as promised - different angles.

 

[Bagpuss]

another to show the shoulders

 

[Bagpuss]

last one. You can see the little diamonds are set almost at an angle. They really catch the light this way.