Please help me do better than this pink tourmaline ring

[heliotrope75]

Hi there, I stumbled across this site and I was hoping to get some help from you all, it seems like there are many knowledgeable people here.

My girlfriend (hopefully soon-to-be fiancée) likes this ring from Topazery:

Link to ring

Now I know enough to know that tourmaline is not hardy enough for an e-ring, so I am planning a similar ring but with a pink sapphire.

I have three questions.

(1) There are some things I think could be better about this ring. Am I crazy for trying to improve on my lady''s choice? (She hardly wears any jewelry, I don''t think she saw more than 20 rings online before she settled on this as "the one"...) Or should I just try to match what she says she likes?

(2) I think the band is too chunky. Has anyone seen any rings that are more-or-less in this style, but have a thinner band, maybe pinched in towards the stone? I can buy the sapphire separately, right? So I am really looking for a setting.

(3) I wonder if it has enough diamonds. There are little surprise diamonds but they''re barely visible. Do you guys think a pink sapphire solitaire can look enough like an e-ring? Or would it be better to have some diamonds on the band to give it more of that look?

Hope to hear what you guys think... thanks a lot.

 

[chrono]

Does she like it for the colour of the stone or the design of the ring? That will be the clue to your answer for questions #1, #2 and #3. As for the stone, yes, you can always purchase the stone and setting separately.

 

[heliotrope75]

Hi Chrono, she likes it for both the color and the design of the ring.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

A lot of how bulky the setting appears is due to the smaller size of the center stone, IMO. I think if that setting had a 7mm+ stone in it rather than what looks like a 5.5 mm stone, you might feel that it's less bulky.

That being said, thinner will help any size stone pop. Here's a setting that has a max width of 2.3mm with some diamonds in the basket to give it a bit of sparkle. Split claw prongs could also be added to this one top help emulate the look of the inspiration ring.

http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Diamond-Settings/-Full-of-Surprises--Diamond-Engagement-Ring_1345.htm

I definitely think a pink sapphire solitaire can look like an e-ring, but those of us that frequent this particular forum are a bit more open to alternative gemstones for an e-ring. I don't think too many people will question any ring worn on the ring finger of the left hand, but there will still be those who will be confused.

Also, if she likes diamonds, she can always add a diamond wedding band to give it a little bling. Otherwise, I think pink sapphire solitaires + a plain wedding band just screams "married".

 

[chrono]

What I’d do is shop for a larger stone but keep the same design (simple prongs with 2 surprise diamonds). Like Lauren, I believe the reason for the setting looking chunky is because the stone is small. That stone is 0.7 ct which I expect it measure close to 5 mm only.

 

[D&T]

here is a very dainty setting in real life (it doesn''t look that way, but once you see it on your finger at the store it is quite lovely), if you have a Jareds near by, they carry scott kay ring, and you can see it there too. the prongs are also dainty too.
pearlmans carry this line as well

http://www.pearlmansjewelers.com/jewelry-designers/scott-kay-jewelry/rings/169U1/

 

[heliotrope75]

Thank you all very much for your replies. Lauren, I think you''re right that a thinner band is the way to go. D&T, that is a great find... it has all the design elements of the one she liked, but is much nicer! I''m only balking a little at the price...

 

[brandy_z28]

Date: 8/17/2009 9:36:16 PM
Author: heliotrope75
Thank you all very much for your replies. Lauren, I think you''re right that a thinner band is the way to go. D&T, that is a great find... it has all the design elements of the one she liked, but is much nicer! I''m only balking a little at the price...

If I was paying attention the price listed for that setting was for platinum and would/should be a bit cheaper for gold. It might be worth a trip to your local jewelry store. I bought a ring that looks exactly like a simon g but cheaper and the quality was right there on the same level when I compared them side by side on my last trip, very minor design differences. Your jeweler should be able to help you find a cheaper alternative, or I''d assume so. It would also give you a good idea of the size of the band. It''s one thing to see a ring/setting in a photo and to actually have it in your hands. Good luck in your search! I have a sapphire e-ring and LOVE it.

 

[oddoneout]

I really like the setting and I agree that a pink sapphire would look very nice.

 

[D&T]

Date: 8/17/2009 9:36:16 PM
Author: heliotrope75
Thank you all very much for your replies. Lauren, I think you''re right that a thinner band is the way to go. D&T, that is a great find... it has all the design elements of the one she liked, but is much nicer! I''m only balking a little at the price...

I know when I last called Pearlmans it was $1400 for wg, at Jareds, I think it was like $1380. (not sure if the price differs in different areas) but I''m sure you can recreate it for a little less. since it doesn''t having anything too complicated with paves or anysidestones, just the surprise diamonds. Whiteflash has a legato sleek line with the tapered/pinched shoulders and you can have them put on double claws instead of their normal four prongs, but does not have a surprise diamond. However the price I think is around $750,

http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Solitaire/-Legato--Sleek-Line-Diamond-Solitaire_1118.htm#

this one is a hand over hand... very pretty but I don''t know what the mm width is. you can also request them put claw prongs instead.. and very reasonably priced no surprise diamond.

http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Solitaire/Hand-Over-Hand-Diamond-Solitaire_1341.htm

 

[heliotrope75]

I think I saw the Scott Kay for $900 in white gold on since1910.com. Also, a local jeweler offered it to me for $1080 including setting (we have a lot of semi-wholesale jewelers in SOMA San Francisco, so the prices are very competitive).

But I still think I''m gonna see if another jeweler can make me something similar!

I''ll let you guys know how I get on...

 

[D&T]

Date: 8/18/2009 1:16:11 PM
Author: heliotrope75
I think I saw the Scott Kay for $900 in white gold on since1910.com. Also, a local jeweler offered it to me for $1080 including setting (we have a lot of semi-wholesale jewelers in SOMA San Francisco, so the prices are very competitive).

But I still think I''m gonna see if another jeweler can make me something similar!

I''ll let you guys know how I get on...

yay! thats fantastic. It will look stunning!

 

[Nomsdeplume]

I think that is a lovely setting, and with a slightly larger stone it will really pop.
I also think that if she likes the ring, she must like the fact that it is simpler and doesn''t have a lot of "bling". So don''t add more diamonds.
These are some sites that are worth visiting in your search for a sapphire:
http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/
http://www.simplysapphires.com/
http://www.rwwise.com/products/category%7C12
http://www.wildfishgems.com/home

 

[chrono]

Date: 8/18/2009 1:16:11 PM
Author: heliotrope75
I think I saw the Scott Kay for $900 in white gold on since1910.com. Also, a local jeweler offered it to me for $1080 including setting (we have a lot of semi-wholesale jewelers in SOMA San Francisco, so the prices are very competitive).

But I still think I''m gonna see if another jeweler can make me something similar!

I''ll let you guys know how I get on...

That''s a pretty good price. One word of caution though; please buy the stone first, then get the ring. This is because getting the stone is much more complex than getting the setting. By getting the setting first, you are adding another unnecessary limitation to finding the right stone.

 

[heliotrope75]

Okay, I have a pink sapphire and I have a wax model of the ring from a local jeweler (see attached). It is based on the Scott Kay design suggested by D&T. The main thing I asked them to change was to fill in the gap under the shoulders, since I know my girlfriend will prefer it like that. They did that. But I''m not entirely happy with it... what do you guys think?

I think the bezel setting for the diamonds sticks out much too far... do you agree?

And the stone is going to end up too high. Why did they make the bezel setting so thick?

Also, could someone explain to me how easy it would be for them to modify the design at this point. I think they are using some computerized system. Presumably the whole point of having a wax model is that you can change it, so I''m hoping I can ask them to make some changes and that won''t be a big deal. Does this seem reasonable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[D&T]

It's looking fantastic! What I do know from my local jeweler having had them do a custom ring for me, He said that 90% of the work is already done with the CAD drawing, and its just a matter of "pressing the buttons" and tweaking the little adjustment to have the wax out. So just tell them that you want to make sure that bezel is a little less protruded and more flush but not burnished or gypsy set (not sure if the makes sense) with the shank/shoulder, usually the CAD is a bit more bulky than the completed ring though, But I really like the idea of a solid shoulder. You did great!

 

[chrono]

Sounds like they started with a CAD drawing, then created the wax for it. The wax usually looks bulky but the final product will be finer. The bezel does appear to protrude quite a bit – I’m guessing this might be more pronounced due to the pinched shank look. It doesn’t hurt to ask if it can be set more flush with the setting.

 

[heliotrope75]

I went and saw the wax model today. I was going to ask them to reduce the size of the bezel for the side diamonds, so as to bring the center stone lower, but they explained that it would end up smaller anyway. For one thing, the wax model is bigger than how it will be in gold (as D&T and Chrono stated). And also, the diamonds actually go out over the sides of the bezel, so that ring around them ends up much thinner. Hard to explain. But they are putting 2.2 mm diamonds in, they look pretty nice. I think the bezel is actually as small as it can be to contain those diamonds. So the bottom line is we are going with the existing wax model.

I hope it works out okay. I am nervous because the model looks chunkier than what I imagined. I am trying to get a really delicate ring here. But they assure me that it will look much more delicate when it''s all finished. The model is chunkier than the final product, because they will file down parts, etc... and obviously you can file down but you can''t build back up. The guys seem knowledgeable and trustworthy... I hope it works out.

 

[packrat]

I think it will look great, and I can''t wait to see it when it''s done!

 

[heliotrope75]

Now I am thinking again to get the wax model changed, because I did some photoshopping to see what the final product will look like, and I still think the bezel surprise diamonds are overbearing.

The center stone is 5.5 mm, the surprise diamonds are 2.2 mm. Most of the rings I have seen have surprise diamonds of about 1.8 mm, and they are usually intended for center stones of 1 ct or about 6.5 mm. So the ratio is quite different. That''s why the surprise diamonds look too big on mine, and I think they will detract from the center sapphire. Any thoughts?

 

[D&T]

yes, I agree, have them remake the cast, as it looks a bit protruded still?

see Laurel's beautiful ritani ring and the surprise diamond is more flushed? is that what you are hoping to achieve maybe ?

Can they pull down the prongs so it looks like its wrapping the surprise diamond a bit so the design can flow more togther maybe? just a thought unless you like the prongs starting at the top of the surprise diamond? not sure uf that makes sense, then the bezel won't look so protruded

 

[chrono]

D&T’s version of the pinched shank with surprise diamonds is more fluid and attractive to my eye. I like how the diamonds are flush with the head.

 

[heliotrope75]

That''s a nice setting D&T (and what a beautiful sapphire!) You must have an incredible memory for rings because whenever I mention something you always bring up a link to exactly what I''m talking about...

Yes, I do think the surprise diamonds should sit flush with the head. I spoke to the jeweler and they are going to make another wax model with all the changes I asked for:

- smaller surprise diamonds (1.8 mm instead of 2.2 mm)
- bezel flush with the head
- narrower band (2.4 mm instead of 2.8 mm)
- rounded shoulders

It is so hard to wait for this to be done! I really want to propose to my girlfriend so we can start talking about the future, etc. I was hoping to do it this weekend because we are visiting the city where we first met, but I''m sure the ring won''t be ready by then...

 

[D&T]

I found this other ring, that looks like how you want your profile to look like, hopefully your jeweler can redo

http://www.knoxjewelers.biz/products/inspiration

 

[lelser]

If you extend the claws (what we call ''prongs'' up here in the Great White North tapering down past the surprise diamond bezel it will make the bezel less pronounced. Laurel''s ring does this and it works well.

 

[heliotrope75]

Yes, I have seen the Knox Inspiration... I almost like it but for some reason it doesn''t quite work for me. I like many of the other Knox designs a lot, in fact, that is where I got idea for the solid shoulder (as opposed to the gap in the Scott Kay ring). But I think maybe the Inspiration is too high.

In any case, they are currently making me a new wax model. I think the prongs will still emerge from the top of the bezel, but that''s fine with me, so long as the bezel is smaller and doesn''t protrude as much. I''ll post the pics as soon as they send them.

I am so impatient! I want this to be finished already... sometimes I wish I wasn''t so picky and had just picked a setting and gone with it. I never thought I could possibly care about jewelry.

 

[D&T]

aww, but think how much more meaning behind the ring when you actually propose. You put so much thought and effort into it, and it makes it that much more special.

 

[heliotrope75]

My jeweler now sent me pictures of the redesigned wax model. I''m really happy with the improvements: the bezel is smaller, the band is thinner, the taper is smoother... basically it looks a lot more delicate.

The only thing that I''m worried about now are the prongs. What do you guys think? I did ask for the double prongs, but are they so big that they''ll detract from the sapphire? (which is only 5.5 mm)...

I am worried that I can''t ask them remake the wax model again, because they already did it once. Is there anything they could do afterwards to minimize the bulkiness of the prongs?

 

[D&T]

willl they make this a double claw prong? which will give it a little more softer look imo.

 

[jstarfireb]

I''m not 100% sure, but I believe prongs are bulkier in a wax model than the real thing, because they then get filed down during polishing. I know this is true with CADs, and I believe it''s true with waxes as well. But correct me if that''s wrong!