dawnxcui
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 341
Niel|1411840735|3757845 said:May I ask, have you ever seen one that's not fully foiled? What I mean is, something along the lines of a designed filigree, similar to screen mesh or something, but prettier?Circe said:My suggestion - my strong suggestion - is to make sure the stone is cupped, foiled, or somehow otherwise shielded in the back to provide it from becoming a big, beautiful magnifying glass for the back of her finger. I adore rose cuts, but they originated in a period when a jeweler would no more set one unfoiled than a lady would have ventured forth without her farthingale. These days jewelers frequently set them with an open back, and while it can be cool in a pendant or earrings, it's not quite as "sparkly" a look as most ladies expect from their engagement rings.
One of the downsides to foiling or cupping, unfortunately, is that it can be hard to keep the underside of the stone clean. I'd suggest filling in some of the negative space Niel mentioned with a highly polished platinum cup that ends below an open gallery, just to give you the freedom to steam-clean it once in a while.
Congratulations on your upcoming engagement!
P.S. - Link to another rose-cut setting thread, a few pics of my own rose-cut solitaire. I love the look the cup gives ... even with a little tarnish to the foil, the depth is mesmerizing.
I would imagine that would be cool,in my head. And would for cleaning though the open spaces. It must be stupid as I've never seen anyone do it, but in my head it always seems like the solution. Put it a few cm below the stone or cup it so it curves away from the stone so the design isn't clearly visible in the bottom of the stone.
I am totally confused by this cupping, foiling, fancy raised up filigree talk...
Does anyone have any pictures of the under gallery of the suggestions above?