Picking sidestones for red spinel

[pregcurious]

Thanks, ElleW. It's good to see you What does TGP stand for?

The Gemstone Project.

Love the traps! If you don't keep them for the spinel (I like them with the spinel too!) get them for another stone!

I bought them for the jadeite I couldn't pass them up.

 

[ElleK]

Thanks, ElleW. It's good to see you What does TGP stand for?

The Gemstone Project.

Love the traps! If you don't keep them for the spinel (I like them with the spinel too!) get them for another stone!

I bought them for the jadeite I couldn't pass them up.

 

[pregcurious]

Okay, here are 2 more options: 0.40 (3-stone) and 0.26 (5-stone) step cut traps. I welcome your feedback.

0.40 step cut half moons

 

[pregcurious]

0.26 step cut half moons. (I think my spinel is tilted at a weird angle here because it looks strange.)

 

[dk168]

Not keen on the step cut 0.4ct half moons, sorry, as they look too tall for the spinel IMHO.

The 0.26ct step cut half moons are better.

However, I still prefer the first two pairs in the first post, the smaller ones for a 5-stone ring and the larger ones for a 3-stone ring.

DK

 

[ElleK]

I prefer the smaller brilliant cut half moons from the first page for this stone as well.

 

[swissmiss]

To me, the first two half moon pairs you posted complement your spinel better, but photographs may not capture the full effect. Which combination is the most appealing to you in person?

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, DK, ElleW and SwissMiss. My preference is for step cut moons in between the 0.26 and 0.40 sizes shown above. I like step cuts better than brilliant half moons. Oh well.

I am kind of stuck.

 

[swissmiss]

Do you have any pictures with the step moons with a white background and closer to the spinel?

 

[AGBF]

I just found this thread today, I will not weigh in yet since I am so new to everything. I am really glad you are taking so much time to consider exactly what you want, though, I set a red spinel with diamond side stones a couple of years ago and pondered every aspect of it for weeks, obsessively. For once I chose what I wanted.

Do not give in and go with what others want!!! Listen to them. Understand their concerns. Then weigh their points against what you want. I would never close my ears to the advice of Pricescopers, but once I understood their points and knew any "dangers" they were pointing out I would feel better prepared to make an informed choice based on what I liked.

Hugs,
Deb

 

[Acinom]

To my eyes this is a great example of a stone with a soft outline, combined with the art deco feel of step cut sides

I agree with Deb: follow your own heart in this in the end.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, everyone.

Swissmiss, I don't have more pictures of the step cuts. I find the black outline helps me distinguish the size of the white diamonds better.

Acinom, that is the look I am going for. I think the smaller stepcut will get me there. I just wish it were a little bigger, but it is what it is. Brilliant half moons have a crushed ice look that does not go well with the mixed cut pattern of the red spinel, but overall size/shape has a bigger impact that cut.

AGBF, thanks for the great advice. I love your spinel ring! Do you wear it often? I am going to go look at it now in your old thread to glean what I can from your process.

 

[pregcurious]

Acinom, the stone in the ring from Steven Kirsch reminds me of my spinel.

Here's another ring with step cut half moons. The center, however, is a ruby, and has that glow that my stone does not have (being a clean red spinel versus a silky ruby). I feel like this ring, however, would have been better with an additional pair of small stones to make it a 5-stone.

That is probably what I will end up doing...0.26 step cuts with little tapered baguettes.

 

[pregcurious]

I found this, which makes me like the 0.40 step cuts. I also like how the 0.40 are more elongated, instead of wide. If I went this direction, it would be a 3-stone.

Hem. Haw.

 

[dk168]

Whatever you decide, it will be gorgeous I am sure, can't wait to see the finished article!

DK

 

[Acinom]

I honestly believe the end result will be great with a spinel like yours. The outcome will be great. Don't get distracted by our personal opinions as your taste is the only thing that matters.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, DK and Acinom. I appreciate everyone's opinions here because you all see things that I don't. A part of me also agrees with the differing opinions.

My issue is that I like the smaller 5-stone look AND the big 3-stone look. The stones are also in another city otherwise I would go over to see them in person on my hand. I asked David about the spread of each on a size 4 finger. This is part of what is hard about doing 1) custom and 2) long distance custom.

 

[dk168]

One of the reasons I like the CAD route is that I can see the ring drawn to my ring size in 3D so that I can better appreciate the proportions, so far so good with the rings I have commissioned from afar.

DK

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks for sticking this long with me.

I made a collage of the different pairs that I am considering. I'm showing this for anyone else who has to do this in the future; you can see that it is much easier to assess stones "side to side" like this. I asked David to retake some pictures with similar backgrounds, and also for dimensions. He has been very helpful.

The size of these pairs are all very close. You have seen all of these before, except for the 0.58 brilliant cut pair, which David found today. I have not included the 0.37 brilliant cut, which were the first pair, because they are not VS.

The only pair I dislike is the 0.58 because the are big, and the shape is too much like a U, which results in an abrupt angle where they meet the spinel. As a result, they lack of flow (for me) with the center stone.

The CADs will help me determine if I can do a 3 or 5 stone. I am leaning towards a 5 stone with the 0.26 or 0.40 pair. For the larger 0.40 pair, the total width is 6.4 (center stone) + 3.4 (sidestones) = 9.8 (with no space). My finger is 1.7 mm across, which leaves room for tiny tapered baguettes. Plus, the side stones will be slightly angled, which means they will take up less space when measured on plane parallel to my hand.

I am going to sleep on it.

 

[pregcurious]

Here are the 2 other pairs.

 

[dk168]

I can appreciate why it is not an easy decision to make! How about asking DK his opinion with regard to which pair he would choose?

DK

 

[pregcurious]

I prefer to only asked him objective questions like if the cuts are good.

For me, it's between the 0.26 and 0.40 step cuts. The 0.46 brilliants are almost the same dimensions as the 0.40, and the latter has my preference for cut (i.e., step cut).

 

[Gemajames]

For what it's worth, I too like the 40 point step cuts. Ultimately you have to be happy with your choice or willing to pay more for a reset down the road

 

[pregcurious]

For what it's worth, I too like the 40 point step cuts. Ultimately you have to be happy with your choice or willing to pay more for a reset down the road

Thanks, Gema. I like the overall shape of the 0.40 the best, and they would result in a 3-stone ring which is the most similar to the last ring I posted.

That said, I think the 0.26 would result in a nice 5-stone, and I like that too.

I will not do a reset...because I'm convinced that it will look okay either way. Plus, like DK mentioned, CADs should help in predicting how the ring looks. I went through 2 resets with my ering, and I learned the hard way to always do CADs with custom settings and to work with someone who specializes in custom settings.

 

[ElleK]

I am with you on the shape of the .58ctw.

Your ring size diameter is about 14.88mm while the circumference is about 46.8mm. Keep in mind that while the stones will be set at some tilt, they will also have some metal underneath them for structure, and they won't actually lie flat on your finger. So for top down coverage, you'd be looking at about 15mm, but I'd probably aim for between 20 and 23mm of coverage for a 5 stone to allow for the curve of the ring. You'll be able to tell more from CADs about how it will look, but I find that rings that have the side to side coverage of almost 1/2 of the circumference for the ring size look best from the top down.

TGal's doesn't have quite that much, but you can see how much room there is under the stones, making the actual circumference of the circle that the girdles of the stones is making is larger than her actual ring size.

----

ETA: with a three stone it won't matter as much, since I don't think you're as worried about full finger coverage with that particular look.

 

[pregcurious]

I am with you on the shape of the .58ctw.

Your ring size diameter is about 14.88mm while the circumference is about 46.8mm. Keep in mind that while the stones will be set at some tilt, they will also have some metal underneath them for structure, and they won't actually lie flat on your finger. So for top down coverage, you'd be looking at about 15mm, but I'd probably aim for between 20 and 23mm of coverage for a 5 stone to allow for the curve of the ring. You'll be able to tell more from CADs about how it will look, but I find that rings that have the side to side coverage of almost 1/2 of the circumference for the ring size look best from the top down.

TGal's doesn't have quite that much, but you can see how much room there is under the stones, making the actual circumference of the circle that the girdles of the stones is making is larger than her actual ring size.

----

ETA: with a three stone it won't matter as much, since I don't think you're as worried about full finger coverage with that particular look.

Thanks ElleW! I really appreciate this advice! I wasn't thinking of the almost 1/2 circumference coverage. I am actually concerned about finger coverage, and do not want a 3 stone with a lot of metal shank showing. Your post is convincing me to do a 5 stone.

I don't mind if my side stones are slightly larger than Tgal's sidestones.

Do you have a preference between the 0.26 and 0.40 step cuts?

 

[ElleK]

I prefer the little guys. I think the size and shape flows best with the oval's dimensions.

My issue is that it bothers me when a straight edged stone is against a curved edge stone and the corners of the straight edge are too far away from the curved edge of the center stone. With smaller stones it's less noticeable because the long edge isn't as pronounced.

BTW, the little ones give you more width than the bigger ones:

5.07x3.46 x2=6.92mm total width
5.51x3.03 x2=6.06mm total width

So yeah, I'd vote .26ctw based on the width alone.

 

[Acinom]

I prefer the little guys. I think the size and shape flows best with the oval's dimensions.

My issue is that it bothers me when a straight edged stone is against a curved edge stone and the corners of the straight edge are too far away from the curved edge of the center stone. With smaller stones it's less noticeable because the long edge isn't as pronounced.

BTW, the little ones give you more width than the bigger ones:

5.07x3.46 x2=6.92mm total width
5.51x3.03 x2=6.06mm total width

So yeah, I'd vote .26ctw based on the width alone.

Ah, this is why I love Pricescope: not only because of the many people with great taste but also very knowlegdeable PSers who share their knowledge. It is so helpful in the process of 'seeing' things you might not have thought about yourself.

Preg: I am sure DK does not mind if you ask him what he would recommend in terms of dimensions. Especially with your tiny ring size.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, Elle, I completely agree with you about a straight edge against a curved edge. I think you and I both see the problems with the 0.58--straight, wide, and big!

Acinom, David has been good about recommending based on my inspiration pictures, and commenting already.

 

[pregcurious]

Posting more inspiration rings. I Googled "2 carat ruby ring" to see rings with similar size center stones.

2 carat ruby estate ring with sides that are tall, and a different shape.