Diamond for unusual bespoke setting

[diamondseeker2006]

I am going along with Niel on this one, and I will be honest. If this is what the lady loves, then fine, she is the one who will wear it and only her opinion matters. Some of us were just questioning whether she had seen a wide variety of unique settings to be sure there wasn't a better choice. Just understand that the majority of people are going to look at that ring and go . I see nothing whatsoever organic (like a vine, etc.) about it. There are hundreds of modern, organic, unique rings for which I can appreciate the design even though they may not be my personal style. But this one is just in another category, I am sorry. I just don't even see a precision cut diamond being right for that setting.

Organic designs: Green Lake Jewelry Works:

http://www.greenlakejewelry.com/unique-engagement-rings.aspx

(organic) http://www.greenlakejewelry.com/gallery/gallery.aspx?p=1

(rustic) http://www.greenlakejewelry.com/gallery/gallery.aspx?p=1 (stones like these would work better in that original setting, in my opinion)

(Edited to add...I just saw that the name of that design is CRUSH, so it obviously is intended to be crushed metal and not organic.)

 

[yssie]

Fact: The reason solitaires, halos, and three-stones are so darn popular is because they stand the test of time: that they are as beloved and sought-after generation after generation is testament to their longevity of design.

Fact: The "crushed metal" design on the interior of this ring is going to make it far more uncomfortable to wear than a band with a smooth interior. I can't begin to understand why the designer chose to continue the texture on the interior of the band - you can't see it, but goodness, you'll feel every ridge and crevice...

Fact: The "crushed metal" design will make this ring far more difficult to keep clean - every fold of metal is a crevice that will gather lotion, dirt, and grease. This setting will need to be cleaned thoroughly and often, for basic hygiene.

Fact: As VR and Niel have already pointed out the high walls reaching well over the plane of the table will most certainly impede light return. The best diamond for this setting isn't going to be a traditionally-proportioned PS-favoured ideal cut - you'll want a shallow, low-crowned stone that returns the vast majority of light coming in from directly above, vs. from a steeper angle. Red on an IS isn't going to highlight this specific type of light return as it won't detail what angle incoming light is incident from.

Fact: Plated WG is a particularly bad idea for this setting because the plating will wear unevenly: it'll wear off the ridges and protrusions first, and stay in the nooks and crannies forever. Unplated WG would be my strong recommendation for any setting of this style (with varying dimensionality).

Fact: I assume it's cast, and each ring has the same "twisted" design? If so, that thin, flat region of the shank right next to the head (on the left side in that picture, attached) is a break waiting to happen: the head is the part of the ring most likely to get caught on something, and the areas of shank right next to the head are pivot points most vulnerable to torque when the head does get caught and twisted. That's why all other ring designers build up that area, with more vertical metal or cathedral shoulders... to remove metal from this area is senseless.


The sheer unwearability of this ring befuddles me, and I'm frankly appalled that OP's jeweller failed to point out the design flaws. This isn't art that hangs on a wall and is dusted every couple of months - jewellery needs to actually be safely wearable!! And wow, it's pricey!! I was expecting the site to list it at half that cost - or less!

OP - please consider our concerns, and discuss them with your SO. We're all hobbyists - we have nothing to gain by pointing the red flags out. I myself have a nontraditional ring and I accepted that it would come with disclaimers and clauses that wouldn't accompany a more traditional design... if you're aware of the issues and you choose to go ahead that's perfectly fine, but it's important to know what you're dealing with

 

[Dancing Fire]

Fact, Yssie ain't too crazy about this ring!...

 

[VRBeauty]

Fact, Yssie ain't too crazy about this ring!...

Thanks DF, I needed a good laugh.

I actually kind of like the setting and applaud the woman who would choose something so unconventional (yet lovely) for her engagement ring.

Yssie brings up a lot of good points, some of which can be addressed - i.e. by using yellow or unplated white gold, and building up the weak spot that she (correctly) spotted. But I'm with Yssie on the question of the diamond - this setting almost makes the diamond cut a moot point, so there's no point setting it with an ideal-cut diamond... unless, of course, you're not concerned about cost, or you're anticipating a re-set somewhere down the line. And as we PS'ers know, re-sets happen to even the best of original settings!

 

[LLJsmom]

nvmd

Ourmanflint -

Before Niel deleted her post, I was just going to come and say that I disagree utterly!

I LOVE this setting! I think it's organic and classy and truly artistic. Sometimes I think if I see one more halo, one more three stone, or one more solitaire - that I'll go out of my mind! THIS, on the other hand, is truly eye catching! I LOVE it!

I agree that - in white gold - the whitest, most well cut stone possible is your best way forward - you'll need it to set up the best contrast between the metal of the setting and the stone. Metal and stone will play off each other to emphasize the other.

Just stunning - this will be eye-catchingly beautiful!

And for those who don't know - 'bespoke' means fully custom made for the client.

ETA - and I wanted to add - I'm quite sure this won't look like a twisted candy wrapper, or some sort of 'trash-to-treasure' sort of idea. The shank is clearly meant to look like the steam of a flower, or the twig of a branch, and the setting for the diamond is floral in nature. Gorgeous!

I can't help it. I do get the organic twisted tree branches and feel of nature. The style really appeals to me. Would I choose it for an e-ring? Hmmm...not sure. But I might want it for a fun ring, maybe put an icy-white D in a yellow gold setting.

I don't disagree with an inch of Yssie's warnings. It's all true. But I still like it. If I had a ton of money and wasn't worried about damaging my ring and can change the setting anytime I get bored of it, I might consider it. I think I may be more worried about loving the setting for the long haul. But people reset all the time. It would be a good-for-now kinda setting for me.

I just checked out the website. I love this designer's fine jewelry pieces. I keep thinking "Lord of the Rings" and something Saruman might have worn. (Hmmm...maybe I wouldn't really consider that something I would choose for an e-ring.)

Sorry, OP, I digress. I do think your fiance should seriously consider Yssie's warnings about the wearability and durability of this ring. If you know all these things going in and can live with it, I think your ring would be beautiful.

 

[GlamMosher]

Was there anywhere the OP asked for an opinion on the setting his gf has chosen? As far as I can see, he asked for help with a diamond.

Really, people can be very rude sometimes. If someone doesn't like a "normal" ring, we must convince them they are wrong because a high percentage of people of all chose similar styles?

 

[Sphene]

Point taken - it was a diamond he wanted - whats the max budget

 

[Sphene]

Idea how about a rose cut diamond this would give a more organic feel to the ring - it could be set either way up and/or maybe very included or colored - just throwing ideas out there

 

[yssie]

If you know all these things going in and can live with it, I think your ring would be beautiful.

This is exactly what I wanted to convey.

None of my concerns are related to the aesthetic - look and feel is such a personal preference. This setting doesn't play to my tastes, but hey, that's personal. What I do object to is flawed design, from the perspectives of wearability and structural integrity, and this setting throws up a number of flags. As VR said a couple of posts ago perhaps the designer will be willing to work with clients on resolving some of them.

As to the comment about rudeness... This is RT. I would abstain from commentary in SMTB, but in RT we do new buyers a disservice by failing to voice our concerns. We all have a lot more experience than OP and we participate here to share that experience... What bothers me tremendously about this particular transaction is that OP's jeweller didn't bring any of this up: that mere consumers should be the ones to note liabilities - potential problems that are possibly well-known but that pale in the face of making the sale - shows a sorry state of affairs.

I like Sphene's idea of a CS, too - a pop of colour would really stand out.

 

[Niel]

I thought the same thing. A pop of blue or even black in a white setting might be what this setting needs. And a black spinel or even diamond that size wouldn't break the bank.

 

[ourmanflint]

Was there anywhere the OP asked for an opinion on the setting his gf has chosen? As far as I can see, he asked for help with a diamond.

Really, people can be very rude sometimes. If someone doesn't like a "normal" ring, we must convince them they are wrong because a high percentage of people of all chose similar styles?

I find it quite funny that this ring has somewhat polarized opinions, I guess it's one of those love it or hate it things! I certainly don't find anything anyone has said to be rude! I'm from Yorkshire and we are nothing if not direct.

My original query was to find out if it was worth having a higher quality diamond instead of lesser one, and thanks to the advice here I think it would not only be worth having a very good stone, in fact it will be far better to have a low color high clarity stone to compensate for the rings design. I see that some concerns that the high flanges around the diamond will impede light transmission.

Each ring is hand made so not cast, it is hand hammered in solid white gold, I will mention to jewller thaterhaps she could even out inside band of ring to male it mire wearable for everyday use, that is something neither of us really thought of, so thanks for the suggestions.

 

[redroze1]

I know you weren't asking for setting ideas but I saw this setting and thought of you. I could see this with a gorgeous diamond in place of the rose. Your setting reads more gothic to me vs organic. If that's what you're going for them great! If not you may want to ask her if she'd consider other settings.

 

[Niel]

Was there anywhere the OP asked for an opinion on the setting his gf has chosen? As far as I can see, he asked for help with a diamond.

Really, people can be very rude sometimes. If someone doesn't like a "normal" ring, we must convince them they are wrong because a high percentage of people of all chose similar styles?

I find it quite funny that this ring has somewhat polarized opinions, I guess it's one of those love it or hate it things! I certainly don't find anything anyone has said to be rude! I'm from Yorkshire and we are nothing if not direct.

My original query was to find out if it was worth having a higher quality diamond instead of lesser one, and thanks to the advice here I think it would not only be worth having a very good stone, in fact it will be far better to have a low color high clarity stone to compensate for the rings design. I see that some concerns that the high flanges around the diamond will impede light transmission.

Each ring is hand made so not cast, it is hand hammered in solid white gold, I will mention to jewller thaterhaps she could even out inside band of ring to male it mire wearable for everyday use, that is something neither of us really thought of, so thanks for the suggestions.

I'm glad youre not upset because that certainly isn't our goal.

I think addressing some of the concerns above are a great idea!

Is she convinced a faceted white diamond is what she's after? Or is she open to other center stones? I think both are dramatic looks, just in different ways.

 

[Tourmaline]

The diamond appears to be set at a sideways angle, and most of it is hidden. I think getting a high quality diamond for this setting is a total waste. Like others, I am surprised that anyone would want this ring as an engagement ring. The designer has similar rings for 1/6 of the price that are set with what appear to be simple rough rocks, which I think go with the style of the ring far better than a nice diamond. Strange.

 

[yssie]

- You will definitely want the designer to also build up those shoulders.

- Re. WG - "white gold" often isn't truly pure icy white - that chrome-like finish is due to rhodium plating (a thin electroplated layer on the surface of the piece). That thin layer of rhodium will wear away unevenly: first in places exposed to friction. There are alloys of "white gold" that are very white without plating - WG alloyed with palladium, etc. You'll want to clarify what alloy she plans on using.

Is she convinced a faceted white diamond is what she's after? Or is she open to other center stones? I think both are dramatic looks, just in different ways.

Ditto. For a coloured gem I think you'd either have to go black (or dark enough that it reads as black) or quite a bit lighter than you would with other setting styles, because since this setting is so enclosed the stone will darken quite a bit - and it'll get less light to sparkle with. Black spinel, like Niel suggested earlier, or silky sapphire (going for "glow" rather than "sparkle")... or perhaps a cabochon gemstone, or faceted opal? A softer stone but very unique, with that same ethereal beauty rose cuts embody IMO, and those high walls offer the distinct advantage of being far more protective than more open styles... bluebirrrd's faceted opal ring is one of my all-time favourite pieces
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-octagon-opal-ring-is-finished.176177/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-octagon-opal-ring-is-finished.176177/[/URL]




If you do want a faceted round diamond I actually disagree with the suggestion of going lower in colour - this setting truly is going to stifle light return, there's just no way around that fact, so my recommendation (if budget is flexible) is to choose as high colour as possible to minimise absorption. I don't think clarity is nearly as important - eyeclean from face-up and without inclusions that have practical impact on light return will be sufficient.

What do you think about fluorescence? Can be a very nifty effect


The type of RB I would suggest is pretty much the opposite of the flavour of the JA you picked (http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.60-carat-g-color-si2-clarity-very-good-cut-sku-608476).
Explanation: The JA you chose will come to life when light is permitted to enter the crown from all angles in the 75-45degree range (relative to the girdle plane, the "horizontal" of 0deg). This range of angles shows up as red under an ASET scope; for reference light incident on the stone from 0-45deg shows up as green and light incident on the stone from 75-90deg shows up as blue. This setting, however, won't permit light to enter the stone at 45deg - the walls are too high and close off the crown entirely. You want a stone of a different flavour: one that intakes the majority of light that it returns face-up from directly faceup (as close to 75deg as possible). This means large table, shallow crown, complementary pavilion. Many will be overly obstructed, meaning that they'll show a lot of black paddling in photos, and will go dark when you bend over them IRL because many facets are returning light in the 75-90deg range - blue under the ASET scope and black IRL when what's in front of them is a black camera lens or a shadowed head... usually that's considered a negative but in this case slight over-obstruction is IMO a definite positive because it's proof that the stone is getting most of its light face-up.

Examples of the flavour of diamond you will want to look for (I'm looking only at proportions):
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.60-carat-d-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-462399 (this one has SBF)
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.61-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-580235
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.60-carat-e-color-si1-clarity-very-good-cut-sku-616614
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.50-carat-f-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-633343
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut/0.50-carat-e-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-621687

 

[LLJsmom]

OP, I'm so glad you're a practical and wise man, and didn't take offense at any of the comments but reaped the benefits. I would seriously consider Yssie's suggestions on diamonds. She knows what she is about. I am eager to see your finished product.

 

[rubybeth]

OP, here's another thought: I wonder if your girlfriend and the creator would consider a more bezel-style setting for the diamond, while keeping the 'crushed' look on the outside of the shank (and possibly the bezel), and the inside of the shank (the part that goes around her finger) would be smooth. This would give more light return (well cut diamonds do just find in terms of light return in bezels), and make the ring a bit more wearable.

Something like this ring: https://www.etsy.com/listing/231052256/handcrafted-old-european-cut-diamond I'll also attach photos of this ring to show what I mean. I think you can still have that rough/crushed look on the outside of the shank and bezel without there being structural issues like Yssie pointed out. Edited to add: and this ring looks fairly comfortable to wear, and stack a wedding band of similar rough texture with it (maybe even one on each side?).

I hope you come back and share what you settle on!

 

[D_]

This means large table, shallow crown, complementary pavilion.

Yssie, how shallow of a crown can OP go and what should the corresponding pavilion angle be?

 

[motownmama]

I actually like this setting. Will you get the matching wedding band?

 

[Tekate]

nvmd

Ourmanflint -

Before Niel deleted her post, I was just going to come and say that I disagree utterly!

I LOVE this setting! I think it's organic and classy and truly artistic. Sometimes I think if I see one more halo, one more three stone, or one more solitaire - that I'll go out of my mind! THIS, on the other hand, is truly eye catching! I LOVE it!

I agree that - in white gold - the whitest, most well cut stone possible is your best way forward - you'll need it to set up the best contrast between the metal of the setting and the stone. Metal and stone will play off each other to emphasize the other.

Just stunning - this will be eye-catchingly beautiful!

And for those who don't know - 'bespoke' means fully custom made for the client.

ETA - and I wanted to add - I'm quite sure this won't look like a twisted candy wrapper, or some sort of 'trash-to-treasure' sort of idea. The shank is clearly meant to look like the steam of a flower, or the twig of a branch, and the setting for the diamond is floral in nature. Gorgeous!

thank you so much Mrs-Blop I had no clue and even searched first on bespoke .. again thanks!

 

[Tekate]

RubyBeth, the ring you posted from Etsy is beautiful and has a real class to it (to my eyes).. to me, this is a good choice for comfortability alone..

peace.

 

[ourmanflint]

Yssie - thank you for that detailed explanation! That is exactly what I was hoping to understand. You're a gem!

what about this one?
D color 0/6 carat Si1

To my eye it looks pretty clean but I know I am not used to looking at diamonds properly

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-dia...-d-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-592205

thanks

 

[ourmanflint]

One further question Yssie if you don't mind?

I am going to view some diamonds this week in London, have made a couple of appointments, as an alternative to buying online from USA. I just want to get the proportions straight in my mind so when viewing diamonds and accompanying certs, I make the right choice.

Am I right in thinking that table width should be on the larger side ie 59% - 62% and crown angle should be shallow, less than 36 degrees approximately?

many Thanks for all your help

 

[mrs-b]

Tekate - you're welcome.

Ourmanflint - here's a cheat sheet for diamond proportions for round brilliant diamonds. If it's not a round brilliant you're after, or you want a more specific version of a round briliant, I apologize - I'm just kind of 'flying past' but had this to hand and don't have time to read the whole thread.

Good luck!

 

[yssie]

One further question Yssie if you don't mind?

I am going to view some diamonds this week in London, have made a couple of appointments, as an alternative to buying online from USA. I just want to get the proportions straight in my mind so when viewing diamonds and accompanying certs, I make the right choice.

Am I right in thinking that table width should be on the larger side ie 59% - 62% and crown angle should be shallow, less than 36 degrees approximately?

many Thanks for all your help

No problem, and I think buying in-person is a great idea if possible

I'd aim for 60 as the center of the range on the table, so if a stone captures your attention at 61 or 58 nothing to be concerned over on that front. 62 is the max I would consider - it's the max eligible for GIA EX cut.

Re. Crown - I'd aim for 33 or less, and pav 41ish or less These are NOT typical PS proportions, but this is not a typical PS need so we're just altering the stone specifications to suit

 

[yssie]

Edit: the stone you linked a couple of posts ago is exactly the right flavour, I think. Looks good, slight over-obstruction just like I was talking about... have someone verify that the SBF label is accurate if fluor is important to you.

 

[ourmanflint]

I think this is the stone I'll be buying, slightly limited by fact that I need it in UK by end of next week so some diamonds take too long to ship.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-dia...-e-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-452821

Has a v small feather but hardly noticable from top due to orientation. Seems like a great stone for what I need.

 

[D_]

Hope you end up with a great ring, OP!
Remember to post pictures, this setting is very intriguing

Re. Crown - I'd aim for 33 or less, and pav 41ish or less These are NOT typical PS proportions, but this is not a typical PS need so we're just altering the stone specifications to suit

Sorry for threadjacking, I'm just fascinated by your explanation, Yssie.
Just curious, if we're looking for a crown angle of 33 or less, why the pav angle needs to be 41 or less (instead of 41 or above so it's complementary to the crown)?

 

[yssie]

I think this is the stone I'll be buying, slightly limited by fact that I need it in UK by end of next week so some diamonds take too long to ship.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-dia...-e-color-si1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-452821

Has a v small feather but hardly noticable from top due to orientation. Seems like a great stone for what I need.

Don't love the pav - steep, even for that crown height and longer lgf

 

[yssie]

Just curious, if we're looking for a crown angle of 33 or less, why the pav angle needs to be 41 or less (instead of 41 or above so it's complementary to the crown)?

It's because we're not really looking for "complementary" by traditional PS definition We're actively looking for shallower stones than most PSers (including me) would consider or recommend.

The rationale for the 'low crown height, large table' suggestion is to keep the top surface of the diamond as flat as possible, as close to parallelling the girdle plane as possible. Diamond has a refractive index of 2.41 and light "bends" at the diamond-air bound as it refracts out of the stone; minimizing crown angle and maximizing the table flat reduces the likelihood of exiting paths "bending" enough to hit the high walls of the setting. The shallower pavilion creates a larger surface reflecting light coming into the stone from directly above - another consideration is LGF: the lower halves are steeper than the pavilion mains, and longer lower halves (less material cut away) are shallower than shorter lower halves (though still steeper than the mains).

Quickie paintjob is not to scale by any means, it's just an illustration.