Width of knife edge setting from Tiffany & replicas

[ringsoonpls]

Hi all, wondering if anyone knows the width of the authentic Tiffany 6 prong knife edge at the widest point (closest to the stone) versus the width of replica knife edge settings. Also, for anyone that has the replica from whiteflash, do you find that it is too wide, especially when paired with smaller stones (<1.5ct) on a slender finger (~4.5).

Thanks!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Hi, I saw you also asked a question about the Good Old Gold version, which is the Vatche U113 on a thread on Show Me the Bling. I have been looking at the Tiffany replicas for 6 years, and am probably about to get one soon. I have only seen the real Tiffany in person and all the replicas in pictures. At one time I knew the widths, but I think it is between 2.0 and 2.5mm.

I personally favor the Vatche U113 with knife edge shank as being closest to the original. If you are buying your stone from WF, they carry Vatche and can get you a price on that ring. It will be more expensive than their version, but I also think it is closer to the real Tiffany setting. They have a gorgeous picture of one on their site with a large stone:

http://www.whiteflash.com/gallery/solitaire-engagement-rings/vatche-6-prong-knife-edge-solitaire-engagement-ring-24302.htm

 

[Kasey3]

I have the Excel Diamonds version of the Tiffany setting and I recently compared it to the Vatche version. I do think that the Vatche version is the best replica I have seen-it is perfect. The Excel version has a distinct knife edge, and the Vatche is softer more rounded yet still knife edge like the original. It also is a little thicker on the shank where it meets the diamond (the shoulders) and it is integrated better-it doesn't look like shank with peg head put on top-it looks more like one unit. It is also wider in general and heavier than the version I have. I tried it on with a diamond that was I think around 1.2ct and I have a 4.25 finger and I think it looked great. I am in the process of upgrading and when I get to my dream size (not there yet!) I am going to put it in the Vatche!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ah, that is really interesting, Kacey! Glad to hear that from someone who has actually compared those two!

 

[Octavia]

The authentic T&Co setting actually varies in width based on the size of the stone. Smaller stones have skinnier bands, and they get proportionally thicker as the stone gets larger so it always looks balanced. With my .35 ct stone, I would estimate the widest part of the band to be about 1.7 or 1.8 mm. Hope that helps a bit!

 

[ringsoonpls]

That makes a lot of sense, and is the reason I think 2.5mm at the widest point is too thick for a 1.4ct stone. What do you think?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Are you buying your stone from WhiteFlash? If so, they will order the Vatche U113 setting for you if you think you'd prefer it.

 

[Kasey3]

I don't think it will be too wide at all. Is there any way that you can go to a Tiffanys and ask to see a 1.4 or close to it? While you are there you can compare it to a smaller ct wt and also compare the widths of the shanks.

I am going to GOG today and I will take another look and compare the widths of the Vatche and my version. I am also going to link Bliss' vatche for you-I know that her diamond is bigger than 1.4-but there are some great pics of the width and she has tiny fingers.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/favorite-solitaire-setting-2011.167574/page-3']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/favorite-solitaire-setting-2011.167574/page-3[/URL]

 

[ringsoonpls]

I actually already have the WF version. Sorry for being so cryptic, im automatically secretive about the ring whoever I talk to! Anyway, the stone is gorgeous, and the workmanship on the setting is top notch. I am just having reservations about the thickness of the band relative to the size of the stone; I feel it makes the 1.4 appear smaller. I also think 2.5 at the widest point may look a bit clunky on her tiny fingers. Then again, the Tiffany original has similar if not identical proportions, so maybe I'm over analyzing?

 

[ringsoonpls]

Looking at kittygolightly's pictures ([URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-gog-tiffany-replica-e-ring.143205/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-gog-tiffany-replica-e-ring.143205/[/URL]) it appears that the width of the finger and not the band has the greatest affect on the appearance of the size of the stone, if that makes any sense! That hand shot has exactly the proportions I am aimig for- her 1.2x looks huge on her finger! I just hope the one I got will look as good proportionally.

If this sounds like analysis paralysis, it probably is! I don't know, the ring just looks very underwhelming in size and proportions in the box. Hoping that when it slides on the finger something magical happens in this regard!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ah, okay, well I think you are overanalyzing! Just let this thought go! 2.5mm is not a wide setting by any stretch of the imagination. Even if the Vatche were 2.3mm for example, it would not be enough to worry over! A 1.4 ct. stone is what I am wanting, so I actually really want to see your ring! Please come back and post it once you propose!

 

[sna77]

I originally had the Whiteflash Tiffany replica for my wife and I swapped it out after a few weeks for the Excel one. It's definitely a closer match to the Tiffany one, although my wife actually thinks the Excel one is too thin for her 2.3 ct RB stone, as the diamond is a bit top heavy and the ring spins.

I've never seen the Vatche one until now--it looks very, very nice.

 

[sna77]

Here's the old thread where I changed the setting:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/just-got-my-fiances-engagement-ring-back-had-the-setting-changed-to-superbcert-s-tiffany-replica-t57558.html']https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/just-got-my-fiances-engagement-ring-back-had-the-setting-changed-to-superbcert-s-tiffany-replica-t57558.html[/URL]

 

[diamondseeker2006]

sna, I remember that. But tell her the little bit of difference in the width of the shank is not going to keep her ring from spinning. Some people have bigger knuckles than the lower part of their fingers, and their rings are just going to spin regardless. It takes a pretty wide band to have an effect on spinning.

 

[sna77]

sna, I remember that. But tell her the little bit of difference in the width of the shank is not going to keep her ring from spinning. Some people have bigger knuckles than the lower part of their fingers, and their rings are just going to spin regardless. It takes a pretty wide band to have an effect on spinning.

Good to know, thanks DS. She was thinking about having the band widened when the ring is redone (IF and WHEN) it ever gets back from the insurance company.

If the insurance co confiscates the band as part of payout, I'll probably go with that Vatche setting. Anyone know how much it costs in platinum?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I got a price of around $1900 for the Vatche but hers might be a little more because of the size of the stone being over 2 cts. But her ring size is small so it might balance out. I am probably going to get it, too!

Does she wear a band between the e-ring and the eternity band? because that would add some thickness and probably help with spinning and keeping the eternity diamonds from scratching her e-ring. In fact, the matching knife edge band might be a great ring to wear as a spacer between the two rings.

What did ever happen about the insurance???

 

[ringsoonpls]

Here's the old thread where I changed the setting:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/just-got-my-fiances-engagement-ring-back-had-the-setting-changed-to-superbcert-s-tiffany-replica-t57558.html']https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/just-got-my-fiances-engagement-ring-back-had-the-setting-changed-to-superbcert-s-tiffany-replica-t57558.html[/URL]

Thanks. Can I ask why you didn't like the WF? Sorry if you mentioned in the thread, I did try skimming it first.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If sna doesn't mind me answering for him, I will tell you from his posts that he thought the Excel version was the closest to the real Tiffany at the time, but he bought his diamond from WF and did not have time before his proposal date to send the stone to Excel to set. So he had the stone set in the WF version, and they decided after the proposal to go ahead and have it set in the Excel version which was his first choice all along. The Vatche was not around at that time, but I think it is currently the best. But you have to understand, some of us are overly particular and 99% of people would probably be totally happy with the WF version! So don't worry since you've already done it!!!! You said you are pleased with it and that is all that counts!

 

[ringsoonpls]

If sna doesn't mind me answering for him, I will tell you from his posts that he thought the Excel version was the closest to the real Tiffany at the time, but he bought his diamond from WF and did not have time before his proposal date to send the stone to Excel to set. So he had the stone set in the WF version, and they decided after the proposal to go ahead and have it set in the Excel version which was his first choice all along. The Vatche was not around at that time, but I think it is currently the best. But you have to understand, some of us are overly particular and 99% of people would probably be totally happy with the WF version! So don't worry since you've already done it!!!! You said you are pleased with it and that is all that counts!

I'm totally with you. I examined the WF over and over and do like it very much. The prongs are all perfect to the naked eye (I did get my loupe today so I plan to do examine it some more), the symmetry is perfect, etc. My only complaint is that I find the width of the band nearest the stone to be too much, at least for the 1.4ct size. However, I now realize that I would probably have the same issue with other Tiffany Knife Edge replicas. I just wish I had known/thought of this sooner so that I could discuss a custom width knife edge with WF. I know there's a return period, but I've got the proposal planned, and there are family functions following that... she won't want to part with the ring!

 

[Kasey3]

OK-no need for me to report my findings! I think your soon to be FI will be SOOOO happy when you slip that ring on her finger. A 1.4 is a great size for a diamond and she will be thrilled! Please post pics!

For Sna I was quoted 2500 for size 4.25, with a stone similar in size to yours. I have the same setting that you do and the Vatche settting is a smidge wider and looks spot on to the Tiffs.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

As long as you don't mention it, I am betting that thought will not even cross her mind!!! After you've been here awhile, you start to get OCD about things, and it can be costly, trust me!!!!! Once that ring has a beautiful wedding band (with diamonds ) next to it, I really don't think you'll even think about it again. Just stay away from threads where we overanalyze Tiffany repro settings and you'll be happier!

Thanks for the report, Kasey! I am surprised the quote for sna's ring was that high compared to my quote. He probably should also check with WF since he got the stone there. Plus, Bliss got hers from ID Jewelry, so that is another place to check. My stone is from GOG so that is why I priced it there.

 

[ringsoonpls]

I think I just need to accept that the Tiffany original, which she has told me she likes, is wide by my standards. That makes it easier, at least until she tells me its too wide in her opinion as well !

 

[sna77]

If sna doesn't mind me answering for him, I will tell you from his posts that he thought the Excel version was the closest to the real Tiffany at the time, but he bought his diamond from WF and did not have time before his proposal date to send the stone to Excel to set. So he had the stone set in the WF version, and they decided after the proposal to go ahead and have it set in the Excel version which was his first choice all along. The Vatche was not around at that time, but I think it is currently the best. But you have to understand, some of us are overly particular and 99% of people would probably be totally happy with the WF version! So don't worry since you've already done it!!!! You said you are pleased with it and that is all that counts!

Thank's DS--I went to dinner, thanks for keeping the thread moving.

I don't have aything new to report which is why I hadn't posted. The replacement company has "someone who was one of the founders of AGS" looking into finding a new stone (who knows if that's true). Until they've tried (and if they fail) then I get a cash payout. Right now, I'm waiting--and my wife is growing impatient...

BTW, my wife doesn't wear anything between the 2 rings--she just has the 2 rings--and loves the look. I just wish the main stone sat a bit higher so it cleared the shared prong ring a bit more.

For Sna I was quoted 2500 for size 4.25, with a stone similar in size to yours. I have the same setting that you do and the Vatche settting is a smidge wider and looks spot on to the Tiffs.

Interesting that we are both are looking to replace the Excel version. ha! If I wasn't going to be on the hook for additional $ for the main stone, I think I would have made her shared prong eternity band a right hand ring and then bought a matched pair of Michael B princess bands...

Anyhow, sorry for the thread jack--I'm sure your fiancee will love whatever you go with. My only advice would be to think about what you want to do for a wedding band up front. I wish I'd given it a bit more thought at the time.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I also apologize for the threadjack!

(sna...yes, they are really taking their time! I hope you can give them a deadline. Do let us know what happens! I LOVE her two rings together! But it will preserve her e-ring prongs if she wears even a thin band between them. If she doesn't, then you'll just probably have to have some repair done to the e-ring occasionally.)