Richard,
While we may not agree entirely on the subject I believe that we agree on most aspects and I love the fact you are so passionate about the art and the artist whether it be a gem or a piece of jewelry that encompasses a gem.
This thread has become interesting. I have certain things I want in a stone. Color and cut are both important, even if I have 100K to spend color and cut are still important.Date: 1/24/2010 6:13:28 PM
Author: crasru
Dear fellow PS-ers, you may be wrong here. Many years ago I happened to work for a very well-known company. Well, the owner flied coach and bought a moderately expensive car which had been (mildly) used by his vice-president. (I am positive he won''t mind the disclosure because it was imentioned n many articles about him). I mean, REALLY rich people may not buy this stone because every dollar they make they pump back into their business to make more dollars. I think these stones are more for people who think they are rich and, as you said, have joined certain social circles. Like Nicholas Cage who bought a dinosaur''s skull for $ 200,000.00 and is now claiming bankrupcy. (Actually, I love his acting and hope he''ll get better financially - but these baubles are for people like him. Their resale value is not high either).Date: 1/24/2010 9:31:50 AM
Author: ma re
Don''t want to drag this into a completely other direction, but I have to adress one point made by TL, that she would do a lot of browsing and careful picking if she''d be filthy rich - that may or may not be. If you''d have piles of money TL, don''t you think you would care a bit less (and worry a bit less) about how much you spend and what you spend it on - as long as it''s something people from your social circles know about?
Michael,
I kind of feel this way. I don''t really have as much money to spend on gems and settings as I would like -- maybe I never will!!
Actually, another forum on PS (was it "rocky-talky"? or "family and home"?) started a thread about PS members and who they are. It was very interesting to read. I''d like to know more about PS members, it would be nice if more people contribute. I have no idea about PS-ers social circle (I think these are still social circles). I''d also like to know who inherited some gemstones and who started totally fresh. It would be nice to know how family history cultivates tastes (I believe it does, and very much so).Date: 1/28/2010 12:49:36 PM
Author: Stone Hunter
This thread has become interesting. I have certain things I want in a stone. Color and cut are both important, even if I have 100K to spend color and cut are still important.Date: 1/24/2010 6:13:28 PM
Author: crasru
Dear fellow PS-ers, you may be wrong here. Many years ago I happened to work for a very well-known company. Well, the owner flied coach and bought a moderately expensive car which had been (mildly) used by his vice-president. (I am positive he won''t mind the disclosure because it was imentioned n many articles about him). I mean, REALLY rich people may not buy this stone because every dollar they make they pump back into their business to make more dollars. I think these stones are more for people who think they are rich and, as you said, have joined certain social circles. Like Nicholas Cage who bought a dinosaur''s skull for $ 200,000.00 and is now claiming bankrupcy. (Actually, I love his acting and hope he''ll get better financially - but these baubles are for people like him. Their resale value is not high either).Date: 1/24/2010 9:31:50 AM
Author: ma re
Don''t want to drag this into a completely other direction, but I have to adress one point made by TL, that she would do a lot of browsing and careful picking if she''d be filthy rich - that may or may not be. If you''d have piles of money TL, don''t you think you would care a bit less (and worry a bit less) about how much you spend and what you spend it on - as long as it''s something people from your social circles know about?
My social circle only knows what I tell them about gemstones, not much interest in the details, so I''m not trying to keep up with anyone or impress anyone. I think that makes my life easier.
Now if I lived next door to Harriet or Chrono well then I''d be impressed by their purchases and trying to figure out how to move to their level. Well maybe PS pushes us that way. The PS social circle is very different than the Nicholas Cage social circle.
Crasru,
I do think that PS is a social circle. For me it is a more valid circle than Hollywood or Country Club because PSers really do know their stones/jewelry. But I don''t think that the car that Harriet or Chrono or another PSer drives would matter to me, just their opinion on jewelry. I wonder...Date: 1/28/2010 1:11:32 PM
Author: crasru
Actually, another forum on PS (was it ''rocky-talky''? or ''family and home''?) started a thread about PS members and who they are. It was very interesting to read. I''d like to know more about PS members, it would be nice if more people contribute. I have no idea about PS-ers social circle (I think these are still social circles). I''d also like to know who inherited some gemstones and who started totally fresh. It would be nice to know how family history cultivates tastes (I believe it does, and very much so).Date: 1/28/2010 12:49:36 PM
Author: Stone Hunter
This thread has become interesting. I have certain things I want in a stone. Color and cut are both important, even if I have 100K to spend color and cut are still important.Date: 1/24/2010 6:13:28 PM
Author: crasru
Dear fellow PS-ers, you may be wrong here. Many years ago I happened to work for a very well-known company. Well, the owner flied coach and bought a moderately expensive car which had been (mildly) used by his vice-president. (I am positive he won''t mind the disclosure because it was imentioned n many articles about him). I mean, REALLY rich people may not buy this stone because every dollar they make they pump back into their business to make more dollars. I think these stones are more for people who think they are rich and, as you said, have joined certain social circles. Like Nicholas Cage who bought a dinosaur''s skull for $ 200,000.00 and is now claiming bankrupcy. (Actually, I love his acting and hope he''ll get better financially - but these baubles are for people like him. Their resale value is not high either).Date: 1/24/2010 9:31:50 AM
Author: ma re
Don''t want to drag this into a completely other direction, but I have to adress one point made by TL, that she would do a lot of browsing and careful picking if she''d be filthy rich - that may or may not be. If you''d have piles of money TL, don''t you think you would care a bit less (and worry a bit less) about how much you spend and what you spend it on - as long as it''s something people from your social circles know about?
My social circle only knows what I tell them about gemstones, not much interest in the details, so I''m not trying to keep up with anyone or impress anyone. I think that makes my life easier.
Now if I lived next door to Harriet or Chrono well then I''d be impressed by their purchases and trying to figure out how to move to their level. Well maybe PS pushes us that way. The PS social circle is very different than the Nicholas Cage social circle.
I think I''ve been misunderstood. I did not mean to say that mass produced settings are icky. I meant to say that if we view mass produced gems as icky shouldn''t it follow that mass produced settings are too. It seems that Gem cutting is not given a middle ground. Guess I needed the winking smilie to convey tone of voice since playful word choice was not enough.
If I don''t want to put a gemstone in a piece of jewellery - be it a centre stone or a side stone - I won''t. It''s my choice. You''ve made an assumption that I only look at gemstones as centre stones - I don''t.Date: 1/28/2010 10:12:37 AM
Author: ma re
Someone could write an essay for a psychology or sociology class from this threadSeriously, 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
I cannot remember the exact month, but I think in late 2008. That being said, this thread is not going to change anyone''s minds about what they like. I''m sure some people are sick to death of my LOGR talk, just as I''m sick of their only "handmade pieces will do" talk. Basically we all like what we like, and I''m not sure where this thread is really going. It''s completely deviated from the original topic.
Date: 1/29/2010 4:19:20 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
I agree - just a shame about the centre stone!
Ok I''m intrigued. I can see how the baguettes point to the centre of the stone, I can see how the "holes" at each side of the window between the baguettes draw your attention to the centre of the gemstone and emphasizes the window but I don''t understand why somebody would design something to draw attention to a flaw?Date: 1/29/2010 4:22:33 PM
Author: colormyworld
Date: 1/29/2010 4:19:20 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
I agree - just a shame about the centre stone!
I think the ''window'' influenced the ring design and in a way they enhance each other. IMO
300x240.png)
