Harry Windston doesn''t mind windows!!

[LD]

For me too, the star of the show is the gemstone - not the frame. If I only owned 2 or 3 gemstones, I would possibly be able to afford to have bespoke settings for everything. I don''t. I''m a collector with a rather large number of gemstones. I simply cannot afford to put all my gorgeous gemstones into bespoke pieces of art. It would take too long and far too much money and you''re a long time dead! However, for my BEST (irrespective of value), most coveted and loved gemstones, I DO go the extra 100 miles to ensure that I have something equisite that to me is art.

At the end of the day, value, worth, and whether something is considered "art" differs wildly from one person to the next. For example, Tracey Emin''s "bed" - to me is not art. It''s crass. However, art critics around the world disagree!

 

[Sagebrush]

All,

Well glad we all see eye to eye on that one.
But, I am very pleased to see I''m not out there all alone!

 

[Arcadian]

Date: 1/27/2010 2:59:14 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
For me too, the star of the show is the gemstone - not the frame. If I only owned 2 or 3 gemstones, I would possibly be able to afford to have bespoke settings for everything. I don''t. I''m a collector with a rather large number of gemstones. I simply cannot afford to put all my gorgeous gemstones into bespoke pieces of art. It would take too long and far too much money and you''re a long time dead! However, for my BEST (irrespective of value), most coveted and loved gemstones, I DO go the extra 100 miles to ensure that I have something equisite that to me is art.

At the end of the day, value, worth, and whether something is considered ''art'' differs wildly from one person to the next. For example, Tracey Emin''s ''bed'' - to me is not art. It''s crass. However, art critics around the world disagree!

LD, I totally agree.

My cheap ass LOGR and other settings for now suit me fine because while cheap they''re still real, and while cheap they still look good. I''m all for good and cheap.

The HW stone is rather well...

I''d rather pay for a custom cut stone and come out ahead than the HW piece.

At the end of the day I am a gemstone girl. Because of that, its what I spend the most of my money on.


-A

 

[Harriet]

I agree with Ma Re and Richard, and would like to add a few points:

1. A custom setting need not distract from a fine gem. Rather, it complements it such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

2. This is my personal preference, but I have and am happy to pay more for a setting than a gem. To wit, my Loliondo.

3. Again, this is my personal preference. I do not seek instant gratification. That is why I have a number of loose gems to be set. I would rather do justice by them than dump them in a setting that would bug me each time I looked at it. Also, a few hundred bucks not spent is a few hundred bucks saved for a future piece.

4. Richard, Graff's Bal Harbour store carries droolworthy gems, I promise.

5. TL, with the exception of the Smithsonian, museums operate on rather tight budgets. Also, as they are primarily educational institutions, they may acquire a gem that, say, completes their andradite series, but which may not be particularly fine.

 

[Arkteia]

I like the turn this discussion has taken...

Maybe I am a poor collector - I like a piece of art. I have flipped through many books on design. Sometimes modern designers use cheap or simple stones, or combine very expensive stones with drusy. Does it make their art less desirable? No. Look at Japanese art - they use such simple materials, sometimes very simple design, but what they produce is beautiful. This ability to see beauty in simple is amazing.

Now where did the tradition to set everything in diamonds originate from? I agree, they can accentuate beauty of some stones, or hide flaws, but I am starting to think that halo setting or "baguettes" are almost obligatory. Some are beautiful, and I have gems set in halo, but to use diamonds for everything is...bourgeois to me (sorry if I offended someone - you''ll soon be laughing at me because I am setting something in diamonds, too!).

I have only seen JKT''s works but I suspect part of their attraction lies in using simple materials and interesting forms, like they do in Japanese art.

Some of simplicity (Richard, I love Alex Sepkus - I think you feature some of his works in your website) is timeless.

 

[Harriet]

Yes, Crasru!

 

[LD]

Date: 1/27/2010 6:02:24 PM
Author: Harriet
I agree with Ma Re and Richard, and would like to add a few points:

1. A custom setting need not distract from a fine gem. Rather, it complements it such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

2. This is my personal preference, but I have and am happy to pay more for a setting than a gem. To wit, my Loliondo.

3. Again, this is my personal preference. I do not seek instant gratification. That is why I have a number of loose gems to be set. I would rather do justice by them than dump them in a setting that would bug me each time I looked at it. Also, a few hundred bucks not spent is a few hundred bucks saved for a future piece.

4. Richard, Graff''s Bal Harbour store carries droolworthy gems, I promise.

5. TL, with the exception of the Smithsonian, museums operate on rather tight budgets. Also, as they are primarily educational institutions, they may acquire a gem that, say, completes their andradite series, but which may not be particularly fine.

Neither do I. I collect gemstones - some I want to set, some I have no intention of setting. Some will be everyday rings, some won''t. What I have learned is that jumping to buy a setting isn''t always a good idea. I wait until the gem speaks to me and an idea evolves. Sometimes that happens quickly - sometimes it never happens.

 

[T L]

I think some people are assuming that a setting that costs $300 is hideous, and that is not the case at all. I really love some of my settings, and I am just amazed at what a great value they are. I was wearing a couple of them today and appreciating the diamonds and millgrain work. However, for me, it will always be the gem first and foremost. I''m grateful I can set them right away and enjoy them on my hand rather then let them languish in a box. I also get lots of compliments and stares, so does that mean that the setting is so atrocious?

 

[Harriet]

LD,
Too true that it "sometimes doesn''t happen."

 

[T L]

Date: 1/27/2010 6:38:57 PM
Author: crasru
I like the turn this discussion has taken...

Maybe I am a poor collector - I like a piece of art. I have flipped through many books on design. Sometimes modern designers use cheap or simple stones, or combine very expensive stones with drusy. Does it make their art less desirable? No. Look at Japanese art - they use such simple materials, sometimes very simple design, but what they produce is beautiful. This ability to see beauty in simple is amazing.

Now where did the tradition to set everything in diamonds originate from? I agree, they can accentuate beauty of some stones, or hide flaws, but I am starting to think that halo setting or ''baguettes'' are almost obligatory. Some are beautiful, and I have gems set in halo, but to use diamonds for everything is...bourgeois to me (sorry if I offended someone - you''ll soon be laughing at me because I am setting something in diamonds, too!).

I have only seen JKT''s works but I suspect part of their attraction lies in using simple materials and interesting forms, like they do in Japanese art.

Some of simplicity (Richard, I love Alex Sepkus - I think you feature some of his works in your website) is timeless.

Yes, but Crasru, many hand made pieces are halos, such as many of the rings that Leon designs. Therefore, even though halos are common and may be mundane to some people, for many, Leon''s halos are a work of art as well. I guess it just comes down to what people prefer in hand made settings. I prefer Holbein to Van Gogh, some people prefer it the other way around.

 

[Harriet]

Leon is perfectly capable of elegant simplicity as well.

 

[PrecisionGem]

As the owner of one piece of jewelry, (a plain gold wedding band), I suppose I''m in no position to post anything here. But here''s my take.

First let me say, thank God for the LOGR rings, since they have helped my stone sales! That being said, if one is thinking of a piece of jewelry, does it matter if the setting cost more than the stone? Richard made a ring for my wife that the gold work alone, even if it had no stone would have been a work of art. I have been thinking I really should have something with one of my stones in it. So I have been toying around the idea some kind of "dog tag" type thing or a Khartouch look, out of a high ct. gold with a hand worked look, and a small tsavorite garnet. I would expect the gold work to be much more expensive than the stone. (no diamond halo!)

 

[T L]

Date: 1/27/2010 8:35:23 PM
Author: PrecisionGem
As the owner of one piece of jewelry, (a plain gold wedding band), I suppose I'm in no position to post anything here. But here's my take.

First let me say, thank God for the LOGR rings, since they have helped my stone sales! That being said, if one is thinking of a piece of jewelry, does it matter if the setting cost more than the stone? Richard made a ring for my wife that the gold work alone, even if it had no stone would have been a work of art. I have been thinking I really should have something with one of my stones in it. So I have been toying around the idea some kind of 'dog tag' type thing or a Khartouch look, out of a high ct. gold with a hand worked look, and a small tsavorite garnet. I would expect the gold work to be much more expensive than the stone. (no diamond halo!)

Nice try Gene on your thankfulness!!

To answer your highlighted question: If you are a serious gem afficionado, I would think yes, if not, then no. People can disagree. For example, I thought that Knoxjewelers piece with your huge white topaz was a work of art, and the setting was probably A LOT more than the stone. However, many serious gem collectors would probably not want a white topaz, as beautiful as the cutting on it may be.

 

[Harriet]

TL,
I, for one, am not saying that $300 settings are "hideous." I''m just expressing my preference for custom work and I can honestly see the qualitative difference.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/27/2010 8:43:11 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover

Date: 1/27/2010 8:35:23 PM
Author: PrecisionGem
As the owner of one piece of jewelry, (a plain gold wedding band), I suppose I'm in no position to post anything here. But here's my take.

First let me say, thank God for the LOGR rings, since they have helped my stone sales! That being said, if one is thinking of a piece of jewelry, does it matter if the setting cost more than the stone? Richard made a ring for my wife that the gold work alone, even if it had no stone would have been a work of art. I have been thinking I really should have something with one of my stones in it. So I have been toying around the idea some kind of 'dog tag' type thing or a Khartouch look, out of a high ct. gold with a hand worked look, and a small tsavorite garnet. I would expect the gold work to be much more expensive than the stone. (no diamond halo!)

Nice try Gene on your thankfulness!!

To answer your highlighted question: If you are a serious gem afficionado, I would think yes, if not, then no. People can disagree. For example, I thought that Knoxjewelers piece with your huge white topaz was a work of art, and the setting was probably A LOT more than the stone. However, many serious gem collectors would probably not want a white topaz, as beautiful as the cutting on it may be.

Well I'm not a serious gem afficionado, but for my fiance (now wife) i wanted no window in aquamarines so I got Richard Homer to cut them https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/suite-of-aquas-from-richard-homer-on-the-way.126730/page-3 in the concave fashion he is famous for. He gave me a great deal on them so much so that the earrings from Ocean cost over 4X the price of all four stones put together. I am not a volume kind of person so I don't expect to collect hundreds of gems, but when I find something I really like after a TON of research I want to present it in the best way possible and finish my idea with the best quality setting as possible with no compromises on the vision of the idea. To me a jewlery present to my wife should be heirloom quality and I have no idea where I would just take a premade setting because it is "nice enough" and call it a day. I could care less about resale value or auction prices, I know jewlery is a terrible investment, but my wife's happiness and seeing her look even more beautiful in a fine handmade piece of jewelry is money well spent to me. I would rather have less pieces of a higher quality and wait a long time in between each piece than to have a ton of unset stones, or stones set cheaply, I guess that doesn't make me much of a collector then. Its really a matter of personal preference and I can see mertis in both schools of thought. I think a lot of lapidarists are artists and they would be loath to hear their art was being put in a setting because it was cheap or not more expensive than the gem itself.

 

[T L]

In my experience, as far as jewelry is concerned (not the gem portion, but the melee and metal)

Cheap does not always equate to bad/poor quality.
Expensive does not always equate to fine quality.

I had a handmade piece done, and it was made very shoddy, and not to my liking at all. I had it remade, and it was okay, but didn't bowl me over (it had no soul I guess). It was over $2K.

My other handmade piece I outgrew in design, and later realized the workmanship was very poor. It was also over $1500 over 15 years ago.

I have a couple of LOGR's that look much better than the above two hand made settings. The total cost on both of those combined do not equal what I paid for either of the above hand made settings.

I own another handmade setting which is a design based on Tacori. Very intricate millgrain work, detailed undergallery and engraving, encrusted with diamonds on the shank and sides of the shank, and actually finer workmanship than Tacori. I compared it side by side at my jewelers where I purchased it with real Tacoris. However, I don't like the center stone, so I hardly wear it. It's really a beautiful setting, but the gemstone doesn't shine in there, so I ignore it, which is unfortunate on my part.

Don't get me wrong, if it had a nice gem, I would wear it all the time, but I've put three gems in there so far, and the piece just overpowers whatever stone I put inside, a pink champagne diamond, a demantoid, and now a yellow diamond. I'm just "meh" about it.

I recently put my violet spinel in a rose gold ring (LOGR) and the stone really pops in there, and I think it's a great marriage between stone and setting. Sometimes metal color, nice diamond melee, and other things combine to make a happy marriage between stone and setting. It doesn't always have to be an expensive hand made setting IMO. These settings are not temporary stone holders as far as I'm concerned, but very nice pieces which I will hand down one day, no matter how many of you cringe. No melee have fallen out, the millgrain is just as nice as some Tiffany rings (I know, I've seen them in person and up close), and the gold weight is substantial.

There are people that are into various things. Some people must have hand made settings, some people must have precision cut gems, some people must have vivid colored gems, or asschers. Everyone has their tastes.

Here is an upclose picture of one of my "cheap" settings with 18K gold and eye clean and beautiful full cut melee. Honestly, if it were really that bad, would I post this close up of it? Sure, it's not a Leon Mege, but it's not horrible either. For some people with eagle eyes, I suppose they would hate it (and people that hate halos), but aesthetically, I think it's beautiful, and it makes the gem the focal point. This setting was around $500. The stone is a cuprian tourmaline of around 3 carats.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Interesting discussion. I have no doubt that my children or grandchildren will reset my diamonds and gems in modern settings when they inherit them. How many threads do we read about someone resetting a stone they inherited? Or perhaps they will just sell them. I don''t feel I have disrespected my gems by putting them in cheap settings. It would be nice to afford a custom setting for each stone but even then we have read about how sometimes that turns out to be a big disappointment. To each his own, no one''s choices are better, it is just a matter of opinion.

 

[Arcadian]

Date: 1/28/2010 1:56:25 AM
Author: LisaRN
Interesting discussion. I have no doubt that my children or grandchildren will reset my diamonds and gems in modern settings when they inherit them. How many threads do we read about someone resetting a stone they inherited? Or perhaps they will just sell them. I don''t feel I have disrespected my gems by putting them in cheap settings. It would be nice to afford a custom setting for each stone but even then we have read about how sometimes that turns out to be a big disappointment. To each his own, no one''s choices are better, it is just a matter of opinion.

Thats really the bottom line right thur!

There''s also those of us who don''t and won''t have children (or even a dog!!) I purchase to please myself and to better further my budget to my own personal taste, thats all any of us can do.

On the real, after I''m gone I''m not going to give a *bleep* what happens to it, because I sure as hell can''t take it with me! LOL


-A

 

[Largosmom]

Jewelry, like art is quite a personal choice...if you love a setting, it does not matter its price. If you hate it, then regardless of its price, it was not worth it. Very few of us here can afford to spend anything we like on a setting, so we should be respecting our budget and setting style should reflect our own tastes (good or bad!). If the setting costs far more than the stone, that should not diminish your enjoyment. Sometimes the stone is what sets of the metal work, sometimes the metal work sets of the stone...neither approach is wrong in my book.

Laura

 

[ma re]

Someone could write an essay for a psychology or sociology class from this thread

Seriously, seems like men care more into the whole picture, while women are more into individual parts - who'd believe, right?

Jokes aside, ditto to what Harriet said above. Also, LD, while I agree with some things you stated I have to write a bit about some other. When you say that you have stones that are not worthy to be each individually set in a custom setting I believe you, and I agree that not all of them are destined to be centerpieces of custom made solitaire rings. But what I'd like to point out, is that there are pieces of jewellery other than center stone rings. In my opinion, only the best stones (i.e. those that you really LOVE) should be set in such rings. For okay/so-so stones there are other uses. You can get another one and make a nice pair of earrings, get several and make a semi-eternity ring, a bracelet, or a necklace (not to mention use them as accents to other stones, or as side stones, or as parts of a multi-gem pendant etc.). That way, the cost of setting could be devided into several stones used and it doesen't seem like that much. I also believe that some "lesser quality stones" could, eventhough they're not the best candidates for a center stone ring, help create a wonderful piece like a creatively thought out brooch, where emphasis isn't so much only on the stone itself, but on the overall scene that it creates (like, for instance, those tiny emeralds used for eyes in Cartier's panthere rings - not the most amazing stones you'll ever see, but they're creatively used and serve their purpose very well). Of course, you can always choose to not set the so-so stones at all, saving money for projects that you'll love and enjoy much more.

You also say that we can't wear fancy jewellery for daily activities, which I agree with. However, I personally think that precious stones and precious metals should only be worn to dress-up for special occasions (just my personal point of view) and that there are fakes and fashion/costume jewellery to serve the purpose of everday adornments. But to all it's own.

So basically, I think that every stone has a chance to shine in a custom setting, and that such a setting doesen't have to cost a fortune (by the use of silver instead of platinum for instance, assuming that structural integrity is assured, like in Etsy pieces we see quite often here). It also doesen't have to contain a zillion of diamonds - some gems just crave for a simplistic setting like a solitaire, but differences between a setting intended for a particular stone and premade ones can be seen even in such a simple design. In fact, that makes them even more obvious (if you know how to look), while ornated settings tend to hide flaws and "sparkle the eye away from them". But of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we all have different tastes and personal preferences. Some of us (jewellery lovers) think that gems are integral parts of jewellery, where stones and settings compliment and complete eachother, while other (gem lovers) have a standpoint that gemstone should always take the center stage - both are right in some way, depends how you look at it

 

[Sagebrush]

Ma Re,

What, there are other types of jewelry that are not simply "frames"? Shocking!!! The idea that a beautiful stone is not worthy of being part of a fine piece of jewelry in nonsense! Its just an example of the reduction of value to price which is simply wrong headed. Price is a reflection of supply and demand which can and is manipulated by advertising and fads among other things. Amethyst is quartz the most abundant of minerals and even in its finest qualities relatively inexpensive. Is its value not based upon its beauty but simply a function of its cost? The history of jewelry is replete with examples that illustrate the point.

Consider Rene Lalique, this justly famous Art Nouveau jeweler used a great many mundane materials in his creations and 100 years later these pieces sell for hundreds of times more than its breakup value. Luckily history shakes out the truly innovative and creative from the chaff of the momentarily popular and faddish. I mentioned Margaret De Patta, in an earlier post. One of her silver rings set with rutilated quartz will command a price above $10,000.00. Study history then do the math.

To me wearing a beautiful gem in an ugly mass-produced setting is akin to going out buying a wonderful length of Sottish or Italian wool the having a suit made by Abdul the Tent Maker. Consider the overall impression.

 

[Arkteia]

I think we are talking about two different things now: jewelry and collections. I believe that LD''s or TL''s collections are so large that it is impossible or impractical to set each stone or choose custom-made settings for them Forgive me, TL and LD, if I am wrong. But they have been collecting for 20+ years, and recently TL showed several of her lavender spinels she bought for $ 20.00 each on the ebay, and wouldn''t buy for $ 250.00 each. And she has several of them. It would be impractical to set them, but they are part of her collection.

People like me buy 2 -3 stones a year (last year was a splurge but last year I just contracted this bug!). But since we all care about our collections, we think of what to do with them, what will happen to them later. So we may either choose to set and wear them or pass them over to our children, or what not. I choose to wear them because at this point in time I see no other option. But if I choose to wear them, I have to like the piece of jewelry so I won''t settle for a setting that I don''t like. If I had a bigger collection and wanted to upgrade, however, LOGR would provide me with a wonderful opportunity to set and, possibly, donate, because trading on ebay is actually a very bad idea for me and my business.

And I am looking for top-class jewellers all the time, but they are either too costly, or not my style at all. I lost an opportunity to work with one, because by the time she returned my email I already made a commitment to someone else. Too bad, I really liked her most. But I found her name in a book, and she is not on the list of vendors. So if it is not against the rules of this forum to direct me to someone who is not on your list of vendors but who you like I''d appreciate help. I am mostly talking about modern-style jewellers.

 

[arjunajane]

Just to wade in, because this decision reminds me of something:
I guess my POV may be illustrated by the recent example where I chose to use five (precision cut, reasonably sized, all fine colour etc) gems in one piece - namely a custom designed hand made bracelet.

The idea does cause some division of opinion - many folks think the gems I am using are "worthy" of being the centrepieces in solitaire / ring settings - I do completely agree as imho they are fine examples;

However, it seems than I am of the mindset/camp that views a piece of jewellery as not just a holder for a gem, but in its entirety as...well I hesitate to use the word art, but I do believe it applies with regard to fine craftspeople such as Julia KT.
I am also in the camp that a number of my settings have been more expensive to create than the gem they are incorporating, and that''s the way I love them.

In the case of my upcoming bracelet, I would much prefer to put almost 10cts of various coloured gems into one very special piece made by a very talented jeweller, than to set all of them individually in pre-fab settings - I would surely enjoy to have bespoke settings for each, but on a student''s salary that will not occur

So, some may think me strange for "wasting" good stones by not setting them separately.
Personally, it is a decision I am very happy with and I hope will end up creating a piece that will be treasured - both for it''s lovely gems and design / craftsmanship.

just my 0.02

 

[Harriet]

Ma Re,
Spot on, especially about the panthers (pun unintended)!

 

[RockHugger]

Then theres people like me who have them laying around in boxes, and one day will set them all in one HUGE crown, and prance around the house like a pretty princess ;-D.
Ahem...*cough*

Seriously though, I have thought about it !

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 1/28/2010 11:44:00 AM
Author: crasru

And I am looking for top-class jewellers all the time, but they are either too costly, or not my style at all.

This is pretty funny from my perspective. I live on the edge of the Columbia Basin, (a nice way of saying desert), in Central Washington State. This is kind of a backwater area, but even then I can count 9 really top notch jewelers living and working within 30 miles of me. One works in his garage exclusively for a high end retailer in San Francisco and is probably the best that I''ve seen. Others work in local touristy areas or downtown, (always trying to sweet talk the local crowd into buying nicer stuff). The main reason that I find this funny is that if my experience is any indicator there are probably 10,000 really good jewelers in the U.S., double or triple that if you include Canada and Mexico. I think that most of these are craftspeople and they''re hiding under rocks somewhere trying to eke out a living doing low end stuff just to survive...kind of the starving artist deal.

 

[Arcadian]

Date: 1/28/2010 11:58:33 AM
Author: RockHugger
Then theres people like me who have them laying around in boxes, and one day will set them all in one HUGE crown, and prance around the house like a pretty princess ;-D.
Ahem...*cough*

Seriously though, I have thought about it !

You know you''d have to post pictures right?

-A

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 1/28/2010 11:47:22 AM
Author: arjunajane
Personally, it is a decision I am very happy with and I hope will end up creating a piece that will be treasured - both for it''s lovely gems and design / craftsmanship.

If you want a piece to be treasured after you''ve had your time with it, I would suggest making sure that you find someone to give or sell it to who will treasure it as well. In the past I have had several people approach me about tearing apart what were obviously true works of art so that they could use the pieces to make earrings for their bratty kids. In every case I mentioned that it would be to their advantage to sell the pieces at auction and use the proceeds to buy earrings. I also refused to tear these things apart, just because it really bugged me to see the cavalier way they were treating something which was truly fine and nearly impossible to replicate now. I think that''s why a lot of the pieces that Richard talks about are getting very high prices...some ding-a-ling melted down most of the works by those original artists. Kind of like using a Rembrandt to start a fire, IMO.

 

[RockHugger]

Date: 1/28/2010 12:12:54 PM
Author: Arcadian

Date: 1/28/2010 11:58:33 AM
Author: RockHugger
Then theres people like me who have them laying around in boxes, and one day will set them all in one HUGE crown, and prance around the house like a pretty princess ;-D.
Ahem...*cough*

Seriously though, I have thought about it !

You know you''d have to post pictures right?

-A

Absolutely! Ill do you one better, Ill make a video of it LOL!

 

[T L]

Date: 1/28/2010 11:44:00 AM
Author: crasru
I think we are talking about two different things now: jewelry and collections. I believe that LD''s or TL''s collections are so large that it is impossible or impractical to set each stone or choose custom-made settings for them Forgive me, TL and LD, if I am wrong. But they have been collecting for 20+ years, and recently TL showed several of her lavender spinels she bought for $ 20.00 each on the ebay, and wouldn''t buy for $ 250.00 each. And she has several of them. It would be impractical to set them, but they are part of her collection.

People like me buy 2 -3 stones a year (last year was a splurge but last year I just contracted this bug!). But since we all care about our collections, we think of what to do with them, what will happen to them later. So we may either choose to set and wear them or pass them over to our children, or what not. I choose to wear them because at this point in time I see no other option. But if I choose to wear them, I have to like the piece of jewelry so I won''t settle for a setting that I don''t like. If I had a bigger collection and wanted to upgrade, however, LOGR would provide me with a wonderful opportunity to set and, possibly, donate, because trading on ebay is actually a very bad idea for me and my business.

And I am looking for top-class jewellers all the time, but they are either too costly, or not my style at all. I lost an opportunity to work with one, because by the time she returned my email I already made a commitment to someone else. Too bad, I really liked her most. But I found her name in a book, and she is not on the list of vendors. So if it is not against the rules of this forum to direct me to someone who is not on your list of vendors but who you like I''d appreciate help. I am mostly talking about modern-style jewellers.

For me, I cannot speak for LD, that is true. For me, it''s about the gem being the focal point, but I really do love some of my mass produced settings as well. While I agree with Richard that there are ugly mass produced settings, I don''t think ALL of them are ugly. In fact, there were some that were so pretty, that I wore them around the house without a stone in them because I felt they were just that nice.

Before anyone judges me for being an unartistic individual, I collect American art pottery, in particular art deco. I also have an 18th century Japanese watercolor hanging in my home, I use an antique Japanese obi as decoration. I am a great lover of art and antiques, and have a small library on various artists whom I admire. I have been drawing since I was a child as well. Art is very important to me, but so is practicality.

Richard, as an admirer of Renee Lalique, I would say that the modern designs are nowhere near as nice as the original pieces. That is another company that I think lost it''s vision.