Could this diamond have been set lower?

[Fletch]

I just had this ring made and despite saying that I wanted the diamond set as low was possible, it came out like this. My questions for the experts are:

1) Is there any reason why this diamond could not have been set lower?
2) This ring was custom made but now that I have all the components (center stone, channel stones, and platinum) could the ring maker melt the platinum down and start over or is the platinum wasted?
3) The channel stones are 35points of "collection quality" stones, I''m guessing H color. How much are they worth?
4) If I wanted to sell the setting (not the center stone) how much could I sell it for?
Pictures should be attached below. Thanks for your help.

 

[denverappraiser]

Fletch,

That’s pretty low already. Is it the space between the culet and the finger that you’re objecting to? A ring could certainly be made without this space but it’s a considerable change in the design. Retrofitting the existing ring to reduce this space is possible but pretty difficult.

Recycling platinum is possible if the metal isn’t contaminated by some foreign substance. Your jeweler should be able to tell you this. Most of the cost of a custom mounting is in the labor, not the materials.

Reselling used jewelry is sometimes a problem and it will depend on who you are selling to and under what circumstances. I can’t give you a straight answer to #3 & #4.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[valeria101]

It looks like the whole ring would have to be remade from scratch... or almost.

Setting off the rak need some extra space to allow different shapes and sizes of stones to "sort of fit"... If you want it dome as lonw as possible, that must be a custom made ring, I think. Perhaps technically this is not entirely true, but I have yet to see low-set generic settings - perhaps high setings are more popular or something and a generic product must follow the average taste. Or something to that effect.

No idea about what the setting might sell for empty.

A very low version of this model happens to be the gool ol' Cartier solitaire (below).

Also, Diamonds by Lauren makes a low four prong basket setting that might be just the thing (LINK).

So... your prefference for as low set as it gets is by no means asking for the impossible.

 

[Fletch]

Ok, thanks. Yes it''s the space beneath the culet that I don''t like. This Cartier ring for example has very little space, which is a little more what I was expecting (for some reason the picture won''t upload). And to answer the second response, this ring is custom, made from scratch, which is why I was hoping it would come out exactly as I had stated.

Thanks for your replies.

 

[valeria101]

This is one of those Cartier rings but the stone is half carat...

 

[Fletch]

Yup, that''s the one I was talking about. Since my stone is 1.1ct, I imagine the culet would come lower.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 4/7/2005 10:31

8 AM
Author: Fletch

... this ring is custom, made from scratch, which is why I was hoping it would come out exactly as I had stated.

If the jeweler didn''t make what your ordered, you have every reason to complain. What does the jeweler have to say?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[Fletch]

The jeweler told me that you don''t want it set too low because then you get less light, which leads to less sparkle. Personally though, I don''t see why setting it fractionally lower would make it lose that much light. If anything, I would think the thick band below the girdle would block the light.

I had to accept the ring as is because I needed it for Saturday. I am now considering bringing it back to have it redone next week (unless of course my wife-to-be likes it as is). Before bringing it back I wanted to make sure that it is indeed possible to have it lower and from your replies, I believe the answer is yes.

Thanks.

 

[PhillipSchmidt]

Hey Fletch,

You will definately need a new ring. Having the cutlet lower won''t play much difference with the sparkle. The majority of people I deal with want the cutlet as low as possible and with future resizing in mind that''s about .5mm - 1mm from the finger. I think it is little different in the US where diamonds are set much higher in general.

The diamond itself is set into the underbezel as low as it could go. In case your curious, nobody ever means that when they say ''set it low''.

I can''t see how that ring could be changed to fit a lower setting without too much work. There is nothing to gain by keeping the channel setting. It would have to be resized and the bridge would need replacing if the same ring accomodated a new setting. Far quicker to start over.

The channel set stones would have cost about half as much per carat as the centre. They, of course can be reused.

The platinum can be sent in for scrap at about the return value of gold. The ring will probably not be reused. It may be possible for the jeweller to melt it himself. It depends on the alloy as many can''t be refined ''in house''. I think he will loose up to half the value of the platinum, plus the existing waste and of course the time that has been spent making that ring. Just telling you , because you asked.

Good luck on Saturday.

Phillip

 

[michela002]

Fletch - I see what you mean and understand what you were expecting. But FYI, I actually think the ring is really beautiful! Despite the possible impracticality of having the stone higher on the hand, you may find the look of it set that bit higher (as it is now) looks better, and might make the centre stone look bigger as against her finger. She might also like it set higher. And keep in mind, too, that having it higher might ensure that a wedding band sits flush, whereas if its reset lower there may not be space for a wedding band to sit nicely next to it, which is very important to some girls.

Also, from what I understand, setting it lower shouldn''t make a different in terms of how much it sparkles. A diamond reflect light that comes into it from the top, so having less space and more metal at the bottom shouldn''t make a difference - how else could bezel set rings still sparkle like crazy? So if you DO want it lower it shouldn''t make a difference in terms of it appearing beautiful and sparkly.

See what she thinks, but I think the ring turned out beautifully, even if it wasn''t what you expected. But if you do get it fixed the jeweler really should try and fix it for you! (And I hate when you say, "I wanted it lower, fix it please" and somebody says, "Oh NO, you don''t want it lower ..." Yes you do, so get them to do what you ask.

 

[Fletch]

The last two posts (like the others) bring up some good points that I will take into consideration. And of course this ring is for her, not for me, so I will let her decide. In any case, the ring turned out exactly as I wanted except for the issue we''ve discussed above. Here''s a view from the top.

Thanks to all who have posted...

 

[FireGoddess]

I think everyone here''s given you great advice...I just wanted to chime in and say that the head on picture is GORGEOUS!!! I think the ring came out superbly well...and unless she thinks the setting is too high for her....it looks fabulous as is!!

 

[Mara]

i would let her make the final decision on what she wants to wear...

i wanted a lower head originally but now i like a slightly higher one and feel like most lower heads look 'squashed' into the ring AND also makes the stone look smaller. don't ask me why but i am just used to my slightly higher head.

lastly, space between the culet and the bottom of the head is good for cleaning purposes, which WILL affect sparkle...i find that since i got my new bigger diamond and have the same head, it's harder to keep my pavilion clean which was easier when i had a smaller stone in the same head. just something to consider!

good luck!

 

[michela002]

Oh, that is just a beautiful ring!

If she wants it lower then sure, see about getting it done, but wow, I think it''s just amazing!

 

[valeria101]

I like low set rings, but that is just a matter of choice - this ring does not have glaring faults, except that it is not what you asked for.

Even that thich under-girdle band matches the thichness of the channel-set band. In this case, the channel work dictated the slightly unusual proportions - without it, the band could have been thinner and more in line with the dainty prongs. The cartier ring has a plain band and that allows the whole contruction to be lighter.

Honestly, I like the channel work and the look of the ring face up.

If you do choose to remake it, what Fedaykin says (that there will be no "cathedral" but a tappered band) seems reasonable.
A compromise may be feasible though; the ring in the picture below still has a layered, double band - just more "gathered" than a cathedral-style setting is expected to be.

Since this is made to order, the millgrain border and the silly hearts on the side can dissapear to match your model. Setting the side diamonds like this (bead set, or pave) would allow the band of the ring to be less havy than the channel set requires. I do not know how large the stone in the picture is...

Not that your ring needs replacing or anything.

 

[Lynn B]

Just chiming in to say that I''m so sorry that you were disappointed in your ring... I see what you are saying, and you have gotten some really great (professional) advice.

My humble 2 cents is this, though... I LOVE it!

I think it''s gorgeous, and personally, I wouldn''t change a thing. Your sweetie may very well love it just the way it is, too. I hope so!

Lynn

 

[rosy]

Oh, it''s gorgeous & beautiful, a lot of times it happens that how it came out is not exactly what you''re expecting because we''re all perfectionists but those channel diamonds on the side are just gorgeous. I saw a similar one with a Princess stone in the middle & I''m tempted to make a right hand ring like that!