Petite or not too.....(MWM Torchiere)

[bee]

I''m thinking of getting either a ~6.46 mm or 6.66mm RB stone about 1 ct and I''m having trouble decideing between the petite or regular torchiere. I like the look of substancial bands vs. thin bands but I''m wondering if a 1ct stone would look best in either petite or regular torchiere setting. The petite is about 2.5mm and the regular is 3.0mm. Also do you think the mm difference between 6.66 and 6.46 is significant once it''s in the setting.

I also like the flame but it''s super difficult to choose between the two.

Thanks so much....we''re getting closer!!!

 

[violet3]

Hey Bee! saw this over in Rocky Talky...do you have any pics we can post of the settings? might be helpful for deciding b/t the two....i''ll look and see if i can''t find them online somewhere.

My sister has a 1 ctw diamond....her setting is very heavy and ornate with a domed top, coming up to surround the diamond, and three sided pave all around. Yes, it definitely makes the diamond look smaller than some other settings would, but she doesn''t care b/c she loves the setting so much and for her, the setting is what it was all about. She was terribly surprised when they made her pick the diamond out first at the jewelry store - lol!!! And for the record, her ring is gorgeous and suits her perfectly.

I''ll see if i can find some picks for you...what size is your finger?

 

[violet3]

if anyone would like to see the difference next to each other, see here http://www.mwmjewelry.com/

If you scroll half way down the homepage, you can find the torchiere. They are next to each other - the 3 mm is on the right and the 2.5 is on the left. There isn't that much visible difference to me, but i am sure there will be some when it gets on the hand.

I say pick the 3 mm if you like the bigger band - it will still be lovely lovely lovely, and i think there's something about a substantial band both in feel and looks.

FYI...here's a photo of the petite...

 

[bee]

Yes, the petite is 2.5mm and the regular is 3.0mm. Thanks so much violet 3

 

[bee]

Thanks, the ring size would be a 5.5.

 

[violet3]

OK, i edited my above post to direct them to the mwm website so they can see the difference in the regular and the petite...you can''t cut and paste them from the site (they must be protected from copying).

I tried to find them on the hand and couldn''t fiind any pics...however, Ladyceil has the sunburst from MWM and she has the 3 mm shank with a 1.3 diamond. Now, interestingly it looks like the sunburst tapers in a bit more toward the head of the setting, which would make it look bigger, but at the widest point the band is 3 mm.

See here...

 

[bee]

Wow, thank for the visual! Yes, the torchiere tapers as well.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 10/1/2008 1:39:02 PM
Author: bee
Wow, thank for the visual! Yes, the torchiere tapers as well.

Aye, the Torchiere is the shank of the Sunburst with the head of the Flame. Gorgeous, isn''t it? My dream ring.

As for your question, I think you can''t go wrong either way, but if you like a bit more substance, then you should probably stick with the original. I''m not sure, but I *think* I remember the taper in the petite version looks slightly more subtle than the taper in the original. So, if you have a preference for more or less taper (and if you agree with me that they looks slightly different as well), you could let that guide your decision as well. But honestly and truly, you simply cannot go wrong with a Mark Morrell.

 

[violet3]

Ok i found it! See this thread....the torchiere (regular). Someone here has this, but never posted handshots...

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-mark-morrell-torchiere.73381/

i really don't think you will see much of a difference b/t 6.6 and 6.4 mm BTW. I'm torn, b/c you have such small fingers that the dainty one would look lovely on you as well, but i am partial to the heavier shank...i just love the weight and look of it. Both would be great - which do you prefer???

 

[bee]

Gosh, such a hard decision... But I think Gwendolyn is correct. You can''t go wrong! I''ll take Gwendolyn''s advice and take a look at the subtle differences between the two.

Thanks so much!!!

 

[wishful]

Date: 10/1/2008 12:48:23 PM
Author:bee
I'm thinking of getting either a ~6.46 mm or 6.66mm RB stone about 1 ct and I'm having trouble decideing between the petite or regular torchiere. I like the look of substancial bands vs. thin bands but I'm wondering if a 1ct stone would look best in either petite or regular torchiere setting. The petite is about 2.5mm and the regular is 3.0mm. Also do you think the mm difference between 6.66 and 6.46 is significant once it's in the setting.

I also like the flame but it's super difficult to choose between the two.

Thanks so much....we're getting closer!!!

Hi Bee
I just got the Petite Torchiere with a 1.7 stone in it and I must stay I am very pleased with the thinner band.
First off I wanted to show off the stone as much as possible so for that reason I did not want side stones in the band or anything like that.
However if you like the thicker look I don't think the Non Petite is too chunky and Mark Morrells platinum work is so smooth and liquid that any size stone is going to look phenominal in either setting.

But if you want that stone to look as large as possible...go with the petite!

And don't forget that if you add a band later on when your married then that will add some thickness to the overall appearance as well.
(another reason why I chose the petite)

 

[smooleys]

I have the sunburst original with a 1.37 diamond. I too was going back and forth between petite or original. I, and my FF, don''t like really thin bands and I thought the 3mm would show off the taper nicely, but without being too thick. I''m getting the ring tomorrow and will post shots for you to see.

 

[bee]

Smooleys....any pictures yet. Thanks so much!