Tell me what you think of this workmanship.

[Dadof4]

Strmrdr
Thank you so much for the pointers on the setting, and your comments. They are spot on to some of my thoughts.

Upgradable
"Palpitations" are exactly what I had when I saw the pictures. My thoughts were that I've made a grave mistake by trying to do something semi custom over the internet.

Feydahn
The question as to whether this is the wrong setting for the Jubilee is one that I didn't delve into very deeply. My assumption was that since the Jubilee is squarish, that a setting for the Princess cut would be suitable. The following is the Vatche setting that I chose with the Princess diamonds in it.

 

[Dadof4]

With the Princess diamonds.

 

[Dadof4]

Here is Vatche's similar setting for the round. Should I have chosen this instead? Why wouldn't anyone tell me so if this was the case?

 

[Dadof4]

Also, I had specifically asked Marie that to the extent that the setting can be customized, my wife would prefer the diamonds to be set lower, rather that sitting up high. It would appear from the photos, that my diamonds are set even higher than either of the stock rings show in the above pictures. Does it seem that way to any of you?

 

[Dadof4]

How does the height of this compare with what you see in the above two pictures? It looks to me like the "U" pieces which form the prongs are deeper/taller than in the above pictures of the Vatche settings.

 

[strmrdr]

Dadof4,
The height looks ok to me.
The crossbars limit how low the stones can be set.
A better fitting setting might be able to go a little lower but not much.

 

[Dadof4]

----------------
On 9/15/2004 9:46:38 AM strmrdr wrote:

Dadof4,
The height looks ok to me.
The crossbars limit how low the stones can be set.
A better fitting setting might be able to go a little lower but not much.----------------

I looking at how high the diamonds set above the circumference of the ring. That is, do the prongs extend higher above the circumference than what we see in the Vatche pictures? "U" pieces are taller?

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 9/15/2004 9:49:55 AM Dadof4 wrote:

----------------

On 9/15/2004 9:46:38 AM strmrdr wrote:


Dadof4,

The height looks ok to me.

The crossbars limit how low the stones can be set.

A better fitting setting might be able to go a little lower but not much.----------------

I looking at how high the diamonds set above the circumference of the ring. That is, do the prongs extend higher above the circumference than what we see in the Vatche pictures? 'U' pieces are taller?----------------

ah I see what your saying the space below the crossbars looks bigger.
It is likely just be the angle the pictures was taken at but yes they do look bigger.
Id ask Jonathon he has seen a lot of these settings.
I thought you were talking about the lenth above the cross bars that sit below the stone accross the U to the tops of the stones.

 

[strmrdr]

for those that are still wondering what were talking about,,,,

 

[Dadof4]

----------------[/quote]
ah I see what your saying the space below the crossbars looks bigger.
It is likely just be the angle the pictures was taken at but yes they do look bigger.
Id ask Jonathon he has seen a lot of these settings.
I thought you were talking about the lenth above the cross bars that sit below the stone accross the U to the tops of the stones.----------------[/quote]

I think that the straight bar will add to the squarish look of the Jub. That is what my wife liked on a Hearts on Fire setting she saw for their 5 stone square Dreams. That is another reason we picked the setting for the princess rather than the round. But we did want the stones as close to the finger as the setting will allow. Hopefully it is, as you say, just the angle of the picture.

Rhino/Jonathan
Have you seen Vatche's setting to be able to compare?

strmdr
I love your photoshop help. Thanks much.

 

[strmrdr]

denverappraiser
My thread on settings.
It is a work in progress I kinda hoping it will clean up enough to be included in the pricescope book but for now its just a FAQ and there are some copyright issues in book form with the photos so I dunno.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/settings-are-not-an-after-thought-what-you-need-to-know.18307/

 

[Dadof4]

----------------
On 9/15/2004 8:52:08 AM denverappraiser wrote:

The bright side is that it doesn't seem to be a terrible job, just incomplete. It looks as though the setter was actually pretty skilled, just rushed. One of the final steps of the setting process is to shape each on the prongs on top of the stone. The setter seems to have skipped through this too quickly. They should go back and finish the job properly with no loss in quality. I'm confident that this has, in fact, already been done. GOG is a first rate dealer and this seems to have just slipped through their quality conrol process.

Dad, finishing this job properly will not result in a 'repaired' piece. It's unfortunte that they showed it to you in this incomplete state but it is just that, an intermediate step. Don't let this discussion give the impression that you are somehow getting a second rate product. 'Taint so.


Neil Beaty, GG ISA
Independent Appraisals in Denver----------------

Neil, Thanks for the encouragement. I certainly need it right now. Would it be your opinion that after it is "finished" that it will look equally as good in its present setting as it would have if I had picked the setting for the round stones?

I also just noticed that the inside of the ring is not stamped with Vatche as are the rings in the Vatche photos. That would further indicate that it was never finished and somehow slipped out the door.

 

[pyramid]

Just posting to say that I appreciate having crankydave here. He certainly seems to know the trade.

 

[Dadof4]

----------------
On 9/15/2004 12:25:46 PM crankydave wrote:

Dadof4,

Was this mounting to made by Vatche or made identical to it?

Dave
----------------

The stones were sent to Vatche for setting in the specified mount.

 

[Dadof4]

The Vatche signature is now on the side of the ring instead of the bottom to make it easier to resize without messing up the signiture. That's why we didn't see it in the photo.

Jonathan and Christen at GoodOldGold are sending the ring back to Vatche. So I'll let you know how it comes out. Thank you to everyone who gave input.

 

[sevens one]

Sooooo how did things turn out?

 

[Dadof4]

At the moment, the ring is back in the Vatche factory. Jonathan at Good Old Gold pointed out this thread to the QC group there, and after reading all of your comments here, they said they would trim the prongs back. Hopefully I'll get it next week.

Stay tuned for pictures to come when it comes back. I'll be curious to get your opinions then.

I hope I won't be disappointed. Two times now, my wife and I have been disappointed with custom designs. We thought this time if we stay with a famous designer, and a more or less stock ring design, that it would look clean and sharp, without many of the flaws which we've seen in our custom designs. When I do a closeup look at Vatche's rings found on their website, they do look "clean and sharp." The ring which I posted closeups of (my ring) seemed to lack the precision that I would expect to see in a selection of designer rings in a showcase. Does that make sense?

 

[Dadof4]

My ring has been back with Vatche for two weeks now, so sent a letter to Jonathan at GoodOldGold to find out what's happening. I didn't want to rush them if they were taking care to do a good job.

Just received a response back from Christen at GOG. Here it is in full:
------------------------------
Hi Robert,

How are you? I spoke to Vatche today and they faxed me a picture showing two ways to have the prongs on the side stones.

* The first picture shows the prongs bent over so it is touching the table. Vatche is saying that this is the way the prongs were originally because it’s the safest being that the crown is so steep on the side stones.

* The second picture is showing the diamonds set with the prongs shorter, only on the girdle and part of the crown. Vatche said with the second picture there is an 80% chance that the side stones will fall out because the crown is too steep and the prongs don’t have a good enough grasp.
I guess the question is which would you rather, the prongs as they are OR shorter prongs and risk loosing the stones?
I know they are not giving you much choice, but this is what Vatche is telling me.

Christen
--------------------------------
So, it looks like I don't have any real options. Since the side diamonds were only about .26cts, I don't have any measurements for them. I can't imagine that they have a steeper crown than a regular round brilliant. And you can see from one of Vatche's picures above that those definatly work.

What do you all think?

 

[reena]

there was a suggestion earlier on this thread that the vatche setting for rounds might have worked better than the one you ended up with (for princesses). would switching to the round setting alleviate the problem at all?




if not, perhaps GOG would let you start from scratch with a new setting that will work for your gorgeous stones? i'm sure that that would be disappointing for you, but at least you would end up with something that is both safe and looks the way that it should.




i feel for you. good luck.

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 10/5/2004 5:07:29 PM reena wrote:







if not, perhaps GOG would let you start from scratch with a new setting that will work for your gorgeous stones? i'm sure that that would be disappointing for you, but at least you would end up with something that is both safe and looks the way that it should.




i feel for you. good luck.

----------------

Yikes, I really don't know what to say except maybe I hope you can start over if you don't think you'll be happy with prongs. It's really a shame with premium stones and a premium designer setting, it can't come together the way you want. Can Vatche do some claw prongs ala Leon Mege? But then again it would match the look of the setting. If you keep the setting, it doesn't appear like you have much choice.

My only other comment would be that, two weeks seems like a long time to wait for a hand sketch to come back

Good luck.

edited to add: I need to learn to be more direct here. I agree with the others when they say you should not accept this especially given the price you paid. If I were you I'd see about getting your money back and let Leon make something for you

 

[reena]

----------------
On 10/5/2004 5:29:23 PM noobie wrote:






My only other comment would be that, two weeks seems like a long time to wait for a hand sketch to come back.
----------------

i totally agree.

 

[headlight]

Dadof4--
My heart breaks for you and your wife as I, too, have been disappointed on more than one custom job, only to have the same train of thought, that if I went with a designer line, it should look like the one in the store!

Based on the reply GOG passed on to you from Vatche, I say you should demand that GOG refund/credit you for the mounting and start over. For GOG to actually say, "I know they are not giving you much choice, but this is what Vatche is telling me" is totally UNACCEPTABLE. Not only did you shell out $2600 for the mounting, but how much business did you give GOG for the FIVE Jubilee stones you purchased???????!!!!!! The fact that GOG is actually giving you the "choice" of option "B", which is where the stones run a high risk of falling out absolutely floors me -- I cannot believe GOG would want this liability!!! My view of GOG has really gone downhill over this one. Obviously, the Jubilee cut is something "new", but if GOG is going to sell it, then they need to know how to SET it!
Honestly, I think your best bet is to have a mounting custom for these stones (although I know the word "custom" doesn't sit well with you right now). If it were princess in the mounting you purchased or rounds in Vatche's round version, then I'm sure it is fabulous. But, you are working with other types of stones here, of which I don't believe mountings are readily available. Also, your wife wants the "basket"/space between the stones' culets and her skin to be as low as possible (that is my preference, as well), and you would have more control vis-a-vie custom. That is what I had to do, as even the most quality workmanship at the top design houses just don't set their stones as low as I prefer. I just don't like the concept of making this mounting "work", as it clearly does not. And, this is something that should've been worked out with GOG and Vatche, and not your responsibility. GOG should try the stones in the Vatche round setting, at no obligation to you, have a custom mounting made, or refund your money and you go elsewhere.
Good luck with this, and once all is worked out, please don't let the hassle of this episode "tarnish" your beautiful creation.

 

[denverappraiser]

Dadof,

Vatche is telling you that the stones are not suitable for the mounting but that they are willing to do either of two second rate jobs in order to accommodate your requirements. You should not be expected to make such a compromise on a brand new item. If they feel the mounting is unsuitable to properly set the stones presented, they should decline the job and refund your money. You should not be asked to accept anything less than a Vatche quality piece and they should be unwilling to deliver anything less than what their name has come to stand for.

Neil Beaty, GG ISA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[Kamuelamom]

Whew, I've read the whole thread!

As one who has personally had issues with my dvatche setting, I really feel for you, dadof4. They are not cheap, and one should expect nothing but the best in quality in both the setting and the product. To "settle" for either of the two solutions they are presenting to you is simply unacceptable IMHO.

Simply put, I will never spend the money on another dvatche again. Not because they are not beautiful, but because when I had trouble with mine, they did not take the responsibility for the issues my ring had, despite it being a design flaw. Dig up my thread and you will see how the side stones in my matching band nearly sawed off my ering prongs. They blamed the setter (DBOF)and it was ultimately Brad who had to take the responsibility for it, despite the fact that he did not even sell me the matching band (I purchased it separately).

As far as GOG, I hope that Jonathan will step forward and say something. I have seen him stand back before, while spectulation and bad feeling build (not saying this is intentional). I hope he will offer you an acceptable solution, as you have spent quite a bit of money with him (I imagine). He is the owner and if anyone can, he should do everything to satisfy you in the end. AFterall, they sold the setting to you, and it appears as though no one informed you it wouldn't work. If there was any clue that this setting would not work for these stones, I should hope that they would have taken that responsibility up front, before you bought it, and suggested some other design that *would* work.

All this said, I have never worked with Jonathan personally, but I have usually seen him come forward (eventually) to make things right. It's hard for us consumers to know what he is thinking right now. We can only speculate and the longer we don't hear from him, animosity could continue to build (on both sides) and evevtually cause more dissention between forum members.

Merely settling on a solution is not acceptable IMHO. AGain, these settings are not cheap. One should get what they pay for.

Good luck, Dad, I hope you have a solution soon.

 

[Daniela]

You need to get your money back because you're not getting through to these people that you paid for quality and you're not getting quality.

I'm very sorry about your situation and know how frustrating it is when these purchases go wrong. I sincerely hope that by starting over you will be able to make this right. Have you considered a custom job?

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 10/5/2004 6:07:47 PM denverappraiser wrote:

Dadof,


Vatche is telling you that the stones are not suitable for the mounting but that they are willing to do either of two second rate jobs in order to accommodate your requirements. You should not be expected to make such a compromise on a brand new item. If they feel the mounting is unsuitable to properly set the stones presented, they should decline the job and refund your money. You should not be asked to accept anything less than a Vatche quality piece and they should be unwilling to deliver anything less than what their name has come to stand for.


Neil Beaty, GG ISA

Independent Appraisals in Denver



----------------

Well said and much nicer than Id have put it I agree 100%

 

[Gale]

It looks like Vatche should have informed someone, GOG at the very least, that the stones were not going to work in that setting before attempting to set them in the first place. Shame on them for proposing a second rate option, and shame on them for handling this whole situation rather poorly.

 

[ep6585]

Dadof4 - What's the status of the ring? Any news?

 

[Dadof4]

The ring is in Vatche's hands right now, waiting on my decision on whether to have them trim back the prongs so that there is an 80% chance that the side stones will fall out.

What I can't figure out is why they can do the same 5 stone truffle ring with RBs, which have about the same crown angle as the Jubilees, but if they do it with Jubilees, the crown is "too steep" and therefore must have long weird prongs.

But the question is moot at this point. The fact is, they are saying that's the best they can do; long weird prongs, or lose the stones.

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 10/6/2004 9:13:06 AM Dadof4 wrote:

The ring is in Vatche's hands right now, waiting on my decision on whether to have them trim back the prongs so that there is an 80% chance that the side stones will fall out.


What I can't figure out is why they can do the same 5 stone truffle ring with RBs, which have about the same crown angle as the Jubilees, but if they do it with Jubilees, the crown is 'too steep' and therefore must have long weird prongs.


But the question is moot at this point. The fact is, they are saying that's the best they can do; long weird prongs, or lose the stones.----------------

Get your money back and start work on a custom neither option is acceptable.
You should be able to get a custom setting for less than what they are charging anyway.