|
|
|
|
Yeah, as far as which we like the look of we know the answer. It's really just the Palladium issue, which necessitates going on and on about the 2nd one to explain the paladium issue. We spent months looking at rings and she was in love with the Coast one for a long time but then saw the Scott Kay one, compared the two, and fell in love with that instead. Then we found out the Scott Kay one was palladium on a second visit. Now it's a tougher choice. It's kind of expensive for palladium too when the Coast one in platinum is actually a couple hundred dollars cheaper (and no one, even on the web, can get the Scott Kay one iin platinum at a price affordable to us). I guess the question would be if it was between two rings you really liked, would you go with the one you slightly liked more even if it meant abandoning platinum for palladium? Thanks for your help! |
|
|
|
|
Plus, a wedding band is more likely to be able to sit flush against the SK than with the basket-set Coast. (This may not be a concern for your girlfriend, but I wanted to mention that because this is an important detail to many women!) |
|
|
|
|
I like the Scott Kay one personally. If you look though the side stones are not tension set. Tension set is when the ring is opened up like a big spring or coil, then diamond placed in, and it snaps shut once released. The way those diamonds are being held is by 2 prongs on the one side, and by the gallery bridge (part of the center mounting) that is acting like a third prong or channel. I know what you mean though by the "tension look" since it appears to be floating.
It looks to be like a good mounting and don't be concerned about palladium. Just be sure that where you buy it is where you'll have it serviced (prongs tightened, ring size adjusted, etc). Just like platinum, you need need experience with the metal to work with it and you'll need a jeweler who has palladium solder, etc. for various repairs. You'd be surprised how many of them have not worked with it before. But it's a beautiful metal, holds up well, never needs rhodium and a great value, not to mention I think it is a very undervalued metal and if you ask me, I think it will appreciate more then gold and platinum in the future. It was much more expensive then platinum not too long ago:
|
|
|
|
|
Try this - this may make you feel better.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/47/1/An-Overview-Of-Common-Alloys-Used-In-Jewelry.aspx You can rhodium plate the palladium if that is a worry - I wouldn't call it 'poor man's' like it is bad - no one will know but you guys. The pic of unplated palladium actually looks really pretty though! |
|
|
|
|
Hey, that's a good question... and I didn't think Scott Kay did white gold until I found this one in white gold for $3100: http://store.jrdunn.com/product-p/sk00m1107rd10jrd.htm but that's the .59 ctw version, I'd bet the .40 ctw would be in my price range. That would give us a more traditionally acceptable metal; but yeah then you've got the yellowing over time, turning your finger green if your allergic, and 19 karat gold is pretty soft so I'd be wondering about the prong strength and engraving/milgrain/pave. I wonder if it's a white gold/palladium mix? I doubt it, but that might be perfect if it is. |
|
|
|
|
I voted for the Coast.
The bands are exactly the same it seems. I prefer the double prong look on the Coast, and I like that the side stones are in 3 prongs, not 4. With the SK it is a fairly antique/vintage looking style and to me the psuedo-tension setting seems out of place because that is a modern design element to me. |
|
|
|
|
Scott Kay all the way!!! Don''t be scared of the palladium, it will be a nice metal for smaller cost. I have a palladium ring that I love and I just ordered a palladium ring for my fi''s wedding band. It is a great option because you don''t need to rhodium plate and it''s inbetween the price of WG/PT. It has a more silvery appearance than WG, but I like it!
|