My new rings from BGD!

[blueiris]

Here are a few photos of my current e-ring with an old YG 1 ct. full eternity (about 3mm). I would have Mark make me a channel set or bead set eternity in platinum, of course - this is just to get an idea of how this style of ring looks. Opinions, comments welcome! (Please excuse my raggedy nails!)

 

[blueiris]

One more

 

[blueiris]

You sound so happy with your new stone - and your Grace is just as stunning as ever!!

I love tg's set - it's such a beautifully blingy take on the traditional solitaire + eternity match A thicker diamond band like hers would compliment your stone beautifully! Actually I think the depth (height off the finger) of the solitaire shank is what makes the biggest difference - I like it when all bands on the finger match well in depth, and the extra depth of bigger diamonds compliments a slightly thicker/deeper shank perfectly IMO

A channel like MGR's Tiffany is another option for a slimmer profile - I'm usually a plain band gal but oh, I LOVE the way hers looks with her threestone!!


Your fivestone is

Thank you, Yssie! I do love my new stone. I loved the "old" one too (even though I only had it a month!) but since I originally started out looking for around 2.5 ct., E/F, VS ... I just had to see this one when Brian got it in.

I totally agree with you on how fabulous MGR's Tiffany band looks with her three-stone!

I need to go back and ogle (yes, OGLE!) your amazing ring more! I don't know if I can think of any more original words to describe it, so I may end up repeating myself on how beautiful, gorgeous, amazing, stupendous (I think that one is new for me, ha), and BREATHTAKING your ring is!

 

[blueiris]

Oh, I am so glad I saw this before going to bed!!! Gosh your E VS1 is perfection! And the MM setting will be a worthy home for it! I don't see a lot of purpose in those diamonds down there at the base of the head. Doesn't he put diamonds in the holes in the prongs on some of his rings? I think I would like that better. I agree that you really need to plan out the wedding band options before ordering the e-ring. I love that ring, too, but the one thing that has stopped me from getting it is that I think the doughnut needs to be a little thicker so the head can be raised up just a little. I think he needs to allow some clearance for any type of wedding band. Since I have had a ring set super low, I know there is danger of a wedding band hitting the prongs of the e-ring if the head is set too low. I have not seen one made with the head up a little, so he may not be agreeable to doing that. But I think it is important to think about in case you ever wanted something like a Memoire eternity to wear with it. We have seen the same problem with some of the Tiffany repros being set too low as well, so that is why we have to be careful to be clear when ordering those as well.

The 5 stone ring is really gorgeous and very nice proportions to go with your wedding set (as I probably already mentioned)! I don't see a think wrong with wearing it as an alternative to the wedding set since that is what I do, too! But it is great that you can wear it on either hand. I am like both you and MGR in that I don't care about having a lot of RHR's because I rarely wear one. The one I will eventually have finished for this anniversary is probably going to be my only RHR (unless I get a new 5 stone band made), and it won't be an everyday ring.

It's so late I'd better stop, but I'll think about all this and come back tomorrow!

You are too sweet, DS! Thank you. I wish I could capture the amazing flashes and fire from this stone, but I'm hopeless at that.

MM does put little diamonds in the holes in the prongs, you're right. This new "Extreme" version has the diamonds lower down. I'm not sure why, exactly; maybe just a different look? I'm not sure I want the little diamonds at all, actually. One thing I really like about his designs is the curves and the little diamonds may distract a bit from that.

Mark can make his rings a little taller for clearance with a wedding band so if you ever do decide you don't want to get the Vatche, that is an option. The Extreme Flame is set like that, and he can also do it with the Petite Torchiere or the Extreme Petite Torchiere (see the photos above for an example of a raised base on a Petite Torchiere). I think a shared prong band, like the gorgeous Memoire bands, is going to be out of the question, unless I want to wear a spacer. I really don't want to wear a spacer; I just don't like that look for me.

I'm going to post the photos from BGD of my five-stone, which I just found on my computer. They're so much better than my own! Thank you for your kind words about it. I wish I could figure out a way to wear it more. I forgot to mention to MGR that one thing I've been toying with is resetting my diamond in my pendant (1.37) in a bracelet similar to her Hearts on Fire bracelet, and then using the five .41 stones from my ring to make a DBY. I don't know if .40-ish stones would be too big, though, and also, I really do like my pendant!

 

[blueiris]

Hey, Blueiris! I just read that you have 5 kids! Me too, I got a five stone ring for exactly the same reason, but I dont wear it with my ering. Alas, mine is only 20 point stones, but I do love it. My ering stone is the same size as yours and I wear it with an eternity with 10 pointers. I love the look of a solitaire with a eternity but I ended up going with a ring that had pave because I knew I loved it. If you wanted to see how the stone looks with 10 pointers you can look at some of my photos.

Another mom of five kids! Congratulations on your five-stone ring! It sounds gorgeous!

I did find your photos of your e-ring with your 10-pt. eternity. Beautiful! You have some really lovely rings!

 

[blueiris]

I love your original set from BGD and am looking forward to your review of a solitaire setting from Mark Morrell.

Thank you, pregcurious! I love my original set, too and some days I think I'm crazy to change it for "just" another solitaire. But ... I was smitten with MM's designs not long after I got my ring and since I have a birthday/anniversary coming soon, and can't think of anything else I want at the moment, I thought I'd go for it!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I personally prefer bead set over channel set, but absolutely any classic diamond band like that would be fine!

He could make one like this but with any size diamonds you wanted (and full eternity):

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Bands_Dec_2006/slides/CL_comp-1L.html

 

[Skippy123]

wow, how did I miss this thread? gorgeous & I love your 5 stone too

 

[blueiris]

I personally prefer bead set over channel set, but absolutely any classic diamond band like that would be fine!

He could make one like this but with any size diamonds you wanted (and full eternity):

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Bands_Dec_2006/slides/CL_comp-1L.html

I am leaning toward bead set, but I like both ... hmmm. I love the one in the photo you posted. Is it just dumb to get a full eternity? I much prefer them, and wear my rings loose so they spin around a lot. But what happens if I get bad arthritis in my knuckles like my mother has?

I am waiting patiently to hear about your plans for your ring(s)!

skippy, thank you for your kind words!

 

[MissGotRocks]

MissGotRocks, I was hoping you'd see the updated thread! Thank you for your kind words! I wish I felt more comfortable wearing the five-stone on my right hand. You wear your Memoire band all the time, don't you? I remember how pretty that band is on you. (Also, as an aside, do you have a bangle style bracelet with one diamond in the center? I sort of remember seeing a photo of it once, and for some reason it sticks in my brain that it was yours. I love that bracelet and want something like that someday.)

I really appreciate your input on the MM setting. Liquid mercury is a very good description! I hope, hope, hope I'm making the right decision because I really don't want to reset this ring again. It involves sending it to an appraiser, on to Mark, back to the appraiser, back to me. A bit of a hassle and not something I want to do again if I can help it!

Any thoughts on the Extreme Petite Torchiere vs. the regular Petite Torchiere? And any thoughts on the little diamonds in the Extreme Petite Torchiere setting? Keeping in mind that I also want to have a diamond band to wear, and that I don't know what style/size of diamond band I'm going to want, I'm just not sure if those little diamonds in the Extreme version will be a problem or not. I asked Mark for his thoughts and he said it depends on if I want a wedding band with diamonds (meaning smaller diamonds), or a more substantial diamond band. And I just don't know! I don't have any stores like Tiffany or other high end stores near me, so I can't just try things on to see what might look good.

You have such a good memory! I do wear my five stone Memoire on my right hand all the time. It was a 25/30 anniversary ring (started as 25 with another ring and after problems with it I traded it toward the Memoire at 30 years). I bought it with the intention of wearing it all the time and foregoing any other RHRs. It's my anniversary ring that balances out the wedding set - starting to see how anal I am? I suppose that's why I never got interested in the colored stones or whatever - I'm just not one to change stuff up too much - I like to wear the same things everyday. The bangle bracelet does have one stone and it was made by Hearts on Fire. I wear it quite a bit and then I have a tennis bracelet that I wear to dressier events.

In all honesty, I don't know the difference between the Extreme Petite and the Regular Petite - can only assume that the proportions of the extreme are smaller. I think it is a beautiful setting though and while I'm not a pave type person, I do like the diamonds in the crown. I don't know how much they would interfere with a wedding band or if because of the donut, they wouldn't even touch. I know that from my experience with my three stone I had a devil of a time finding a wedding band that I liked. I had a couple of plain gold bands but always wanted a diamond wedding band. The problem was (and remember I have a three stone ring with the stones kind of set low) that when I paired a wedding band with the ring, it just looked like a big glob of diamonds. It was sparkly but I still wanted that center stone to shine on its own. I think in finding the Tiffany channel set band I found something that had minimal metal, plenty of sparkle and was thinner overall than the ering. This seemed to fit the bill. A large round diamond appears different than stones in a wedding band. Guess I should say they don't match just because of their size and different appearance but that bugged me. I also couldn't stand if the color looked off and it always did to me in wedding band stones that had some size to them. Again, the appearance of the stones is different and the colors look different too between one large stone and say seven smaller stones. Most people probably know and accept this - I'm just too picky and anal. I do think that a solitaire setting looks completely different with a band too than the three stone I'm used to working with and hopefully you won't find that you have to tear up the town to find a look that you love. I'm old enough now to know if it bugs me in the store it will never grow on me and I'm just wasting my money. All of this to say that I don't know if I could have ever found an ering and wedding band at the same time that I would have loved. Maybe in this case you get the ering setting that you love and then hunt for a wedding band that pleases you. If you were really lucky, maybe Mark could suggest something paired with the setting and he could make both at the same time.

At any rate, your five stone band is stunning and I hope that you can become more comfortable with wearing and enjoying it on your right hand. Again, I think that type of band compliments the wedding set on the other hand. It's so beautiful and I would hate to think of it spending most of its time in a box!

I love your Memoire ring! Your previous comments (when I was debating various five-stone ideas in the late fall of 2010) about your Memoire ring balancing your wedding set have stuck with me. I remembered you saying you increased the size of the stones to 2 ct. because it seemed more balanced to you.

I don't know if I just don't like wearing a ring on my right hand, period, or if part of it is that the diamonds stick out somewhat on the sides and are a bit pokey. I really wanted 30 pt. stones but Brian felt strongly that 40 pt. stones balanced better with my e-ring and wouldn't be too large for my finger. I think your finger is smaller than mine (mine's a 6.25 on the right) - do you find that your Memoire with 40 pt. stones pokes you?

The Extreme Petite Torchiere differs in just two ways. The upper basket/prongs are more elongated than the regular Petite Torchiere, and the position of the little diamonds in the basket is moved from the upper openings to the lower openings. I misunderstood Mark and thought that the E. P. T. also had a somewhat raised "donut" to allow for a wedding band. But I've now learned that he can make it that way.

I looked at the photos of your beautiful 3-stone ring with your channel-set Tiffany band, and they look wonderful together! I love what you said about a "ribbon of diamonds" - perfect. Like you, I also want a diamond band and also like you, I want the e-ring stone to remain the "star", so to speak. I do intend to have Mark make both the setting for my e-ring and the wedding band; it just seems to make sense to me. After talking again to Mark via email, and looking at more photos of other rings he has designed (which I'll attach below), I am pretty sure that a shared prong ring is out of the question. He doesn't make shared prong rings to wear with his e-rings (at least that I am aware of), and I'm assuming the reason is they tear up the prongs/basket. If I'm going to go to the trouble (and expense) of having MM make my rings, I don't want to have to worry about tearing up the basket and prongs! So that leaves channel set, and bead set - with the caveat that a bead set ring would need to have more metal on the sides to keep the girdles of the diamonds from doing their chewing! Mark's bead set rings do not allow the girdles of the diamonds to extend to the sides of the band. In reality, his bead set bands look a little different from his channel set bands, because of the beads, but not all that different. I don't know which style I like best. I am also going to attach a few photos I took this morning of my Grace setting with a YG channel set ring I have. I'd love opinions on that look with my ring (assuming that the MM ring will look similar from the top). The YG channel set ring is 1 ct., full eternity.

Here are a few of Mark's rings:

No, the Memoire band is not at all pokey. It is one of the major reasons I went with Memoire; the stones were set lower and there wasn't a sharp place to be found on the ring. Their workmanship was wonderful but the comfort of the ring was key as I planned to wear it everyday.

As far as the wedding band, I will tell you that I must have looked at hundreds through the years. I love a shared prong wedding band with a solitaire but the stones chewing the prongs is a big problem - unless you are willing to wear a spacer. Lots of folks here do that very thing and it creates a very beautiful look. I never seriously considered the shared prong though because with the three stone ring, it just looked like too much - too many stones, too many directions to pull the eye. Just not for me.

Bead set or channel set? Both are beautiful rings. This was my experience - for what it's worth. The bead set rings to me produced a shimmery look because of the tiny prongs in between the stones. The channel set band from Tiffany's had the stones set girdle to girdle with no black spaces or depth behind the stones to create shadows that I didn't care for. The metal was minimal and because of all of that, this band created that ribbon type of look. I had tried on other channel set bands that I just didn't care for because the height was off, there was empty space around or behind the diamonds, or the edges just had too much metal. I thought it was a lost cause until I found the one from Tiffany's. Mark Morrell produces beautiful pieces though and I'm sure he would make a ring that was aesthetically pleasing. Either way you can't go wrong - I just think the two bands produce two slightly different looks. I like highly polished metal and diamonds so even milgraining is not for me. It really is though just a matter of personal preference - no right or wrong answer to be had.

 

[yssie]

Here are a few photos of my current e-ring with an old YG 1 ct. full eternity (about 3mm). I would have Mark make me a channel set or bead set eternity in platinum, of course - this is just to get an idea of how this style of ring looks. Opinions, comments welcome! (Please excuse my raggedy nails!)

I agree with MGR re. "shimmer" from bead-set bands - that's a really good description for the effects that I've noticed too. I really like the look of the channel, though I think it needs to be lower profile - or the shank of the MM needs to be deeper (but that's back to matching depths of rings)...

 

[blueiris]

I truly appreciate your input, MissGotRocks. Thank you!

In thinking about my jewelry, I tend toward the streamlined look. My pendant is bezel-set, my rings are very plain, my watch is very plain (stainless, no diamonds), my earrings are martini set. Those are the pieces I wear every day, but even thinking about my older jewelry, it has all been quite streamlined. There have been times when I see an older piece or a new piece that is made to look antique and it's breathtakingly beautiful with the milgrain and engraving and amazing, special details. I really admire those rings/necklaces, etc. And I've even thought about getting something like that; their beauty is hard to resist! But in the end, since I want all of my jewelry to not only work together but also work with my style (plain, modern, simple - and that applies not only to jewelry but also to my clothing and handbags and home furnishings), I have stayed with my more modern pieces each time I've gotten something new. So perhaps, I am best with a channel set band. I wish I had a Tiffany's near me so I could go in and try some on.

I can see what you mean in my own photos of my old YG eternity, about the blackish spaces behind the stones. Their girdles do seem to be touching and without a loupe (or closeup photography), it's hard to see, but you're right. I looked on MM's site and I can't find a channel set band; they all seem to be bead set. I'll have to ask him for photos of his channel set bands.

I am also leaning away from any little diamonds in the crown - I think I really want to see MM's design without "distraction", if that makes sense. I might change my mind on that.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I am much the same way. I prefer clean, classic lines. It's just my preferred look. I too am the same way with clothing and furnishings. I love to see some of the antique pieces of jewelry that others buy - the old stones that we see more of are just gorgeous. I truly love them but just not so much for myself. I truly appreciate others tastes in home furnishings too - just some beautiful things but when buying for myself, I just like a more classic and traditional look. I think as time goes by and you've had a chance to have and discard, you finally find your own style and feel very comfortable with it.

I think Mark Morrell truly has a good eye for style and I'm sure he will work with you. You are fortunate to be able to talk with him and bounce ideas back and forth until you settle on something that really suits you. Do you have any high end jewelry stores around to browse and try on different rings? For me, I like to be able to try on things - at least to try on certain styles. I can point out fifteen rings in a jewelry case that I find attractive but if I'm lucky, there will only be one that really looks good on me or pleases my eye.

My best advice is to take your time and look around all that you can before you make a final decision. Your stone is gorgeous and I feel confident that you'll find rings that compliment your stone!

 

[blueiris]

Here are a few photos of my current e-ring with an old YG 1 ct. full eternity (about 3mm). I would have Mark make me a channel set or bead set eternity in platinum, of course - this is just to get an idea of how this style of ring looks. Opinions, comments welcome! (Please excuse my raggedy nails!)

I agree with MGR re. "shimmer" from bead-set bands - that's a really good description for the effects that I've noticed too. I really like the look of the channel, though I think it needs to be lower profile - or the shank of the MM needs to be deeper (but that's back to matching depths of rings)...

I agree, that eternity doesn't work well with my Grace setting. It's one I wore with a former setting for my emerald cut and just happened to have (actually, I have two of those eternities - I'm terrible about getting rid of jewelry I no longer wear). I agree that the depths/heights need to match in the new rings; that's very important to me. I'm not so sure, however, about whether the width of the rings can/should be different. For instance, if I end up wanting somewhat larger diamonds in the band, and that means that the band has to be wider than the shank of the e-ring, will that look "off"?

MissGotRocks, I live in an area devoid of any high-end stores at all. For me to try things on, I'd have to take a trip or have things sent to me. It definitely makes things more difficult.

I too admire others' taste that is different from mine. I can have somewhat eclectic tastes at times - for instance, many of our pieces of furniture and accessories would fall into the mid-century modern category, but I also have a large collection of antique cookie jars, which don't really "go" with the mid-century modern look. Sometimes I look at those cookie jars and think I should just sell them, but I love their whimsy and "homey" feeling (plus I love to bake, though I don't actually use the jars to store cookies). But in jewelry, I know that I'm most comfortable in plainer pieces that I never feel won't "work" with what I'm wearing or where I'm going. I'd probably be characterized as having "boring" jewelry taste by many people (my mother, for instance).

I do think MM and I will be able to work together well. His primary style seems to be rather restrained and modern, though I know he is willing to make other beautiful styles.

 

[stargurl78]

Your ring is beautiful Blueiris and I'll bet the Mark Morrell will be just as stunning! I like the extreme version of the Petite Torchiere that you posted but I don't think I'll be able to fully tell the difference between that one and the regular one unless I saw a side-by-side picture. I'm sure it will be gorgeous either way!

I don't think you can go wrong with either band, but I think I slightly prefer the channel band. It just looks so smooth and fluid like the Petite Torchiere.

Petite Torchiere with channel band:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mwm-channel-set-eternity-band.150494/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mwm-channel-set-eternity-band.150494/[/URL]

MWM Flame with a channel band:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/anniversary-upgrade-mark-morrell-flame-w-bgd-stone-w-matching-band-by-mark-morrell.132147/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/anniversary-upgrade-mark-morrell-flame-w-bgd-stone-w-matching-band-by-mark-morrell.132147/[/URL]


I do like the Tiffany channel band over the MWM because it appears to sit lower on the finger but I would think the band should be the same height as the e-ring so I'm not sure which one would best match. I found a Tiffany one with a solitaire here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-my-upgrade-thanks-psers.105026/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-my-upgrade-thanks-psers.105026/[/URL]

The band in the last pic in this thread appears to be bead-set:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-regular-mwm-sunburst.87068/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-regular-mwm-sunburst.87068/[/URL]

Hope these help! Good luck!

 

[yssie]

Your ring is beautiful Blueiris and I'll bet the Mark Morrell will be just as stunning! I like the extreme version of the Petite Torchiere that you posted but I don't think I'll be able to fully tell the difference between that one and the regular one unless I saw a side-by-side picture. I'm sure it will be gorgeous either way!

I don't think you can go wrong with either band, but I think I slightly prefer the channel band. It just looks so smooth and fluid like the Petite Torchiere.

Petite Torchiere with channel band:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mwm-channel-set-eternity-band.150494/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mwm-channel-set-eternity-band.150494/[/URL]

MWM Flame with a channel band:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/anniversary-upgrade-mark-morrell-flame-w-bgd-stone-w-matching-band-by-mark-morrell.132147/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/anniversary-upgrade-mark-morrell-flame-w-bgd-stone-w-matching-band-by-mark-morrell.132147/[/URL]


I do like the Tiffany channel band over the MWM because it appears to sit lower on the finger but I would think the band should be the same height as the e-ring so I'm not sure which one would best match. I found a Tiffany one with a solitaire here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-my-upgrade-thanks-psers.105026/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-my-upgrade-thanks-psers.105026/[/URL]

The band in the last pic in this thread appears to be bead-set:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-regular-mwm-sunburst.87068/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-regular-mwm-sunburst.87068/[/URL]

Hope these help! Good luck!

Oh fantastic finds Stargurl!

Not that you asked BlueIris but I gotta say I am totally sold on the channel band!! They look incredible in those pictures - I'm really liking the simple channel design next to the detailed solitaires

I find myself *ever so slightly* favouring the channel+flame combination over the petite torchiere - I think perhaps because the flame has more pronounced shoulders? Though both are heartbreakingly beautiful...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, I did not recall seeing a channel set by Mark before, but it is gorgeous! I did want to say that I have also tried on the Tiffany channel set bands and would be thrilled to own one! I am very picky, though, and probably would only choose those two to go with a MM ring. And really, in order to have the proportions ideal, Mark should make the band. I'd choose the Tiffany for myself if I went with the Tiffany repro e-ring setting (which I am pretty sure about). I don't like a lot of other channel set bands due to them having too much metal. That's really why I shop for bands at Tiffanys because they really do have the best ones.

I do want to clear up one or two misconceptions, though. A bead set band will look like a shimmering ribbon when the stones are tiny, like in my 2mm Legacy band, but they are not going to look like that if you choose 10 point stones (or whatever size you want!). The shimmer has nothing to do with the beads because they are minute in a well made band. The only thing that shimmers are the diamonds! I have to use a loupe to see my beads! But my daughter wanted a wider one and had a 2.5mm bead set band made and I love the size of hers. The wider Legacy band is 3.2 mm and has 1.2 ctw.

Mark's beadset band that I linked does not have milgrain, so it is as clean and modern as the channel set. Here's another one:

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Straight_13_diamond_Band_for_Petite_SunBurst_/

And yes, you absolutely can wear any width wedding band with a classic thin solitaire e-ring! The main difference is in a bead set band there are no gaps between the stones and in a channel set there are. That is just personal preference as to what you prefer. But both can be made clean, simple, and modern and with any size diamonds you want! I'd just want the shape of the shank to be complementary and the heights to be the same.

Here's a Tiffany channel set that is 3.9mm wide:

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP01604&mcat=&cid=&search_params=s+1-p+2-c+-r+-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+channel+bands&search=1

 

[yssie]

Oh, I did not recall seeing a channel set by Mark before, but it is gorgeous! I did want to say that I have also tried on the Tiffany channel set bands and would be thrilled to own one! I am very picky, though, and probably would only choose those two to go with a MM ring. And really, in order to have the proportions ideal, Mark should make the band. I'd choose the Tiffany for myself if I went with the Tiffany repro e-ring setting (which I am pretty sure about).

I do want to clear up one or two misconceptions, though. A bead set band will look like a shimmering ribbon when the stones are tiny, like in my 2mm Legacy band, but they are not going to look like that if you choose 10 point stones (or whatever size you want!). The shimmer has nothing to do with the beads because they are minute in a well made band. The only thing that shimmers are the diamonds! I have to use a loupe to see my beads! But my daughter wanted a wider one and had a 2.5mm bead set band made and I love the size of hers. The wider Legacy band is 3.2 mm and has 1.2 ctw.

Mark's beadset band that I linked does not have milgrain, so it is as clean and modern as the channel set. Here's another one:

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Straight_13_diamond_Band_for_Petite_SunBurst_/

And yes, you absolutely can wear any width wedding band with a classic thin solitaire e-ring! The main difference is in a bead set band there are no gaps between the stones and in a channel set there are. That is just personal preference as to what you prefer. But both can be made clean, simple, and modern and with any size diamonds you want! I'd just want the shape of the shank to be complementary and the heights to be the same.

Good point on the stone size and the light return you're going to get DS. And you're right - in mass-produced goods the beads are generally prominent and highly polished, and so they *do* contribute to the shimmer, but of course anything by Tiffany or MM is going to be wholly different in terms of bead size and prominence!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, Yssie, I have really found that workmanship really shows on diamond bands! And it is worth it to me to pay for fine workmanship on a wedding band or e-ring. And I am sure that you of all people in the world understand that!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, and I forgot to answer about full eternity vs. not. I am sort of afraid of full eternities since they can't be sized. I do have one, but I am hesitant about getting any more. My rings don't spin, so it's not such a problem for me to have diamonds only across the top. I guess worst case scenario would be to have to have one remade and reuse the diamonds (which I am sure would cost almost as much as a whole new one).

 

[blueiris]

Your ring is beautiful Blueiris and I'll bet the Mark Morrell will be just as stunning! I like the extreme version of the Petite Torchiere that you posted but I don't think I'll be able to fully tell the difference between that one and the regular one unless I saw a side-by-side picture. I'm sure it will be gorgeous either way!

I don't think you can go wrong with either band, but I think I slightly prefer the channel band. It just looks so smooth and fluid like the Petite Torchiere.

Petite Torchiere with channel band:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mwm-channel-set-eternity-band.150494/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mwm-channel-set-eternity-band.150494/[/URL]

MWM Flame with a channel band:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/anniversary-upgrade-mark-morrell-flame-w-bgd-stone-w-matching-band-by-mark-morrell.132147/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/anniversary-upgrade-mark-morrell-flame-w-bgd-stone-w-matching-band-by-mark-morrell.132147/[/URL]


I do like the Tiffany channel band over the MWM because it appears to sit lower on the finger but I would think the band should be the same height as the e-ring so I'm not sure which one would best match. I found a Tiffany one with a solitaire here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-my-upgrade-thanks-psers.105026/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/introducing-my-upgrade-thanks-psers.105026/[/URL]

The band in the last pic in this thread appears to be bead-set:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-regular-mwm-sunburst.87068/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-regular-mwm-sunburst.87068/[/URL]

Hope these help! Good luck!

stargurl78, THANK YOU! I had a feeling that I'd seen a photo of a channel set band somewhere with one of Mark's rings, just by chance one day, and my searching ability is so awful here that I couldn't find it again and thought I was probably mistaken.

I have trouble seeing the difference between the Torchiere and Petite Torchiere and Extreme Petite Torchiere, too. From what I've read on Mark's site and what he's told me, here are the differences (three variations):

The Torchiere is the widest, and most bold. It tapers in toward the basket. I think (not sure on this) the width of the shank is about 3mm.

The Petite Torchiere is about 2.5mm wide, so the taper toward the basket is a little less dramatic.

The Extreme Petite Torchiere is the same width as the Petite Torchiere but has elongated prongs and the little diamonds (if used) are placed in the lower "windows" of the woven basket, not the upper "windows".

Now for the Flame (two variations):

The Flame is 3mm wide, doesn't taper toward the basket, and has a knife edge. It also doesn't flare upward toward the basket, as the Torchiere family does.

The Extreme Flame is the same width as the regular Flame, and also has a knife edge. The changes that make it "Extreme" are that it has elongated prongs and the little diamonds (if used) are placed in the lower "windows" of the woven basket not the upper "windows", like the Extreme Petite Torchiere.

Either the Flame or the Torchiere (all variations) can be made with a taller "donut" to allow more clearance for a wedding band.

The Torchiere, Petite Torchiere, and Extreme Petite Torchiere all taper in toward the basket, and rise up somewhat toward the basket (you can see this in the profile view - I'll attach a photo). Do any of you have opinions on that aspect of the Torchiere family? When worn with a band, obviously the top of the e-ring would be taller than the height of the wedding band. I think it looks fine in the photo you linked, stargurl - but I'm interested in other opinions!

I am so appreciative of everyone who has posted in this thread, and your help with me trying to figure out what I want! I really want this to be my last setting (at least for a long while) and I'm so worried about making a mistake. If I weren't so tired right now, I'd reply to each of you. But I will do so tomorrow, and in the meantime, thank you!

 

[blueiris]

Oh fantastic finds Stargurl!

Not that you asked BlueIris but I gotta say I am totally sold on the channel band!! They look incredible in those pictures - I'm really liking the simple channel design next to the detailed solitaires

I find myself *ever so slightly* favouring the channel+flame combination over the petite torchiere - I think perhaps because the flame has more pronounced shoulders? Though both are heartbreakingly beautiful...

Yssie, thank you for giving your opinions! I really appreciate input from you and everyone else. All opinions welcome!

Do you all think the MM channel is on par with the Tiffany channel?

I have wavered back and forth between the Torchiere family and the Flame. On the one hand, the Flame is "safer" because it's more like what I have now (no taper toward the basket, and no flare upward toward the basket). On the other hand, I think the taper in the Torchiere looks very graceful, as does the flare upward. I am having trouble making a decision.

 

[blueiris]

Oh, I did not recall seeing a channel set by Mark before, but it is gorgeous! I did want to say that I have also tried on the Tiffany channel set bands and would be thrilled to own one! I am very picky, though, and probably would only choose those two to go with a MM ring. And really, in order to have the proportions ideal, Mark should make the band. I'd choose the Tiffany for myself if I went with the Tiffany repro e-ring setting (which I am pretty sure about). I don't like a lot of other channel set bands due to them having too much metal. That's really why I shop for bands at Tiffanys because they really do have the best ones.

I do want to clear up one or two misconceptions, though. A bead set band will look like a shimmering ribbon when the stones are tiny, like in my 2mm Legacy band, but they are not going to look like that if you choose 10 point stones (or whatever size you want!). The shimmer has nothing to do with the beads because they are minute in a well made band. The only thing that shimmers are the diamonds! I have to use a loupe to see my beads! But my daughter wanted a wider one and had a 2.5mm bead set band made and I love the size of hers. The wider Legacy band is 3.2 mm and has 1.2 ctw.

Mark's beadset band that I linked does not have milgrain, so it is as clean and modern as the channel set. Here's another one:

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Straight_13_diamond_Band_for_Petite_SunBurst_/

And yes, you absolutely can wear any width wedding band with a classic thin solitaire e-ring! The main difference is in a bead set band there are no gaps between the stones and in a channel set there are. That is just personal preference as to what you prefer. But both can be made clean, simple, and modern and with any size diamonds you want! I'd just want the shape of the shank to be complementary and the heights to be the same.

Here's a Tiffany channel set that is 3.9mm wide:

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP01604&mcat=&cid=&search_params=s+1-p+2-c+-r+-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+channel+bands&search=1

DS, thank you for your comments! I'm glad to read that you think the MM channel band looks good (as good as Tiffany?) and also to learn more about bead set bands. I do like the idea of no gaps between the stones. My husband has commented several times when I make him look at rings with me that he prefers seeing less metal, more diamond.

I am really undecided about whether I want the widths of the band and the e-ring shank to match, or if I'm okay with them being different widths for the sake of a wider, more diamond-y band! I think my tendency is to "match" as much as possible. My other sets have always matched, with the exception of my second-to-last setting for my emerald cut diamond. But in that case, the stone was set on a wider platinum band and was flanked by the two YG eternities (one of which I photographed yesterday with my Grace setting), so it wasn't the same idea as a wider diamond band with a narrower e-ring. I'm going to try to find photos of wider diamond bands with a plain solitaire to see more examples.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't have the energy to see if I already said this on this thread or not, but I'd probably choose a matching band of 2.5mm (and in that case I would choose the beadset because he can make the shanks of both rings match). And yes, I would stay with the extreme petite torchiere (gosh we need an abbreviation for that!!!...EPT..haha!) because I vastly prefer the longer prongs and smaller prong tips. I do not like a low squatty head on any solitaire. I don't like those low diamond accents. I only like them if they are in the higher holes. But I like it without, also.

And the reason I would choose the matching band is that you can always wear the 5 stone band for some variety. I really love having an alternate ring to wear because it makes me appreciate both rings more when I switch them! I am going to get a thin 2mm platinum wedding band to wear with my 5 stone band. I am going to try them on the next time I go to Tiffany's.

I can't wait to see your finished rings!!! They will be gorgeous!!!

 

[blueiris]

I don't have the energy to see if I already said this on this thread or not, but I'd probably choose a matching band of 2.5mm (and in that case I would choose the beadset because he can make the shanks of both rings match). And yes, I would stay with the extreme petite torchiere (gosh we need an abbreviation for that!!!...EPT..haha!) because I vastly prefer the longer prongs and smaller prong tips. I do not like a low squatty head on any solitaire. I don't like those low diamond accents. I only like them if they are in the higher holes. But I like it without, also.

And the reason I would choose the matching band is that you can always wear the 5 stone band for some variety. I really love having an alternate ring to wear because it makes me appreciate both rings more when I switch them! I am going to get a thin 2mm platinum wedding band to wear with my 5 stone band. I am going to try them on the next time I go to Tiffany's.

I can't wait to see your finished rings!!! They will be gorgeous!!!

DS, thank you ... Can you explain why Mark could make the shanks of both rings match if I go with bead set, and not with channel? I'm sure that is a dumb, dumb question, but I don't have all that much experience with jewelry.

I appreciate your input on the band width, too. For the last half hour or so, I've been trying to find photos of wider bands with narrower e-rings and have found a few. Seeing those affirmed my previous choices, I think - that I prefer the widths to be the same.

My current rings are 2 mm and one of my big concerns with the Flame's width is that it might feel too wide to me (my other concern is the knife edge, since I've never had one). I like the ease of narrower rings; they feel more comfortable to me. That is a big reason I was leaning toward the PT or EPT; just a mm or two can make a difference in how things feel. And like you, I also like the elongated prongs on the EPT. I hadn't noticed the smaller prong tips (gosh, you have a great eye for details!) but that is appealing to me, too. I am going to omit the diamond accents altogether. As I said earlier, I like the cleanness of the design by itself; the diamonds are a little distracting to me.

Funny (once again) - I wear my 2mm band with my five-stone much of the time when it's the five-stone's "turn" to be worn. I like the way it looks. I'm betting you will, too. In my case, it also helps the five-stone not feel quite as big for my left hand. I think I'm really a 5.5 or 5.75 on that hand, but I always get a size 6 because I like my rings pretty loose. Especially in the summer, when the humidity is high. My five-stone is a 6.25, so it does feel pretty big on my left hand. If I end up only wearing it there, I guess I could get it sized down a bit.

Thanks again, DS! Now that we have me almost sorted ... what about you? You were going to tell me about your upcoming changes and I am very interested!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I'm sure Mark will make the shanks to match whether you go with channel set or bead set. You need to decide on which style you want and how wide you want the wedding band to be in relation to your ering setting. The larger the stones you choose, the wider the band will be of course. It's all just a matter of your personal preference cause you will be the one wearing them!

 

[blueiris]

I'm sure Mark will make the shanks to match whether you go with channel set or bead set. You need to decide on which style you want and how wide you want the wedding band to be in relation to your ering setting. The larger the stones you choose, the wider the band will be of course. It's all just a matter of your personal preference cause you will be the one wearing them!

I think I really want the widths to match, even though that will mean smaller diamonds. It also helps with maintaining my goal of keeping my diamond the center of attention. With that in mind, I'm still leaning toward channel set because I think I might like it better in a narrower size than I would the bead set. This is harder than I thought it would be. I'm usually pretty decisive. I appreciate everyone's opinions and advice very much!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I'm sure Mark will make the shanks to match whether you go with channel set or bead set. You need to decide on which style you want and how wide you want the wedding band to be in relation to your ering setting. The larger the stones you choose, the wider the band will be of course. It's all just a matter of your personal preference cause you will be the one wearing them!

I think I really want the widths to match, even though that will mean smaller diamonds. It also helps with maintaining my goal of keeping my diamond the center of attention. With that in mind, I'm still leaning toward channel set because I think I might like it better in a narrower size than I would the bead set. This is harder than I thought it would be. I'm usually pretty decisive. I appreciate everyone's opinions and advice very much!

You are very welcome! I like your rationale on the sizing of the two rings - makes perfect sense!

 

[betty6333]

Lovely rings! I like the 5 stone with 5 kids too!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't have the energy to see if I already said this on this thread or not, but I'd probably choose a matching band of 2.5mm (and in that case I would choose the beadset because he can make the shanks of both rings match). And yes, I would stay with the extreme petite torchiere (gosh we need an abbreviation for that!!!...EPT..haha!) because I vastly prefer the longer prongs and smaller prong tips. I do not like a low squatty head on any solitaire. I don't like those low diamond accents. I only like them if they are in the higher holes. But I like it without, also.

And the reason I would choose the matching band is that you can always wear the 5 stone band for some variety. I really love having an alternate ring to wear because it makes me appreciate both rings more when I switch them! I am going to get a thin 2mm platinum wedding band to wear with my 5 stone band. I am going to try them on the next time I go to Tiffany's.

I can't wait to see your finished rings!!! They will be gorgeous!!!

DS, thank you ... Can you explain why Mark could make the shanks of both rings match if I go with bead set, and not with channel? I'm sure that is a dumb, dumb question, but I don't have all that much experience with jewelry.

I appreciate your input on the band width, too. For the last half hour or so, I've been trying to find photos of wider bands with narrower e-rings and have found a few. Seeing those affirmed my previous choices, I think - that I prefer the widths to be the same.

My current rings are 2 mm and one of my big concerns with the Flame's width is that it might feel too wide to me (my other concern is the knife edge, since I've never had one). I like the ease of narrower rings; they feel more comfortable to me. That is a big reason I was leaning toward the PT or EPT; just a mm or two can make a difference in how things feel. And like you, I also like the elongated prongs on the EPT. I hadn't noticed the smaller prong tips (gosh, you have a great eye for details!) but that is appealing to me, too. I am going to omit the diamond accents altogether. As I said earlier, I like the cleanness of the design by itself; the diamonds are a little distracting to me.

Funny (once again) - I wear my 2mm band with my five-stone much of the time when it's the five-stone's "turn" to be worn. I like the way it looks. I'm betting you will, too. In my case, it also helps the five-stone not feel quite as big for my left hand. I think I'm really a 5.5 or 5.75 on that hand, but I always get a size 6 because I like my rings pretty loose. Especially in the summer, when the humidity is high. My five-stone is a 6.25, so it does feel pretty big on my left hand. If I end up only wearing it there, I guess I could get it sized down a bit.

Thanks again, DS! Now that we have me almost sorted ... what about you? You were going to tell me about your upcoming changes and I am very interested!

Generally, channel set bands have a flat sides and a flat top (a more squared shape). Howwever, Mark Morrell is not your average ring maker, so it is possible he could make a rounded channel set band. I just don't think I have seen one. His bead set bands seem to be more rounded on the sides as the e-ring would be. I truly don't care whether the bands match perfectly and am sure even if you bought a Tiffany channel set band, it would be beautiful. I just think it is good to think about before buying because some people require the bands to match and others do not. I really don't because I will probably be going with the Tiffany knife edge and none of my bands will be that shape! Your rings now do have the same shape and that is why I am suggesting that you think about it. But both are classics so you can't really make a bad decision. I've just been around too long and think of minute details!

As for me, I may switch out my current stone for one that is very close to the same, but I am sort of interested in one with fluoresence. There is one I have my eye on and I am having my e-ring vendor check it out. I won't settle for less than ideal/excellent cut and I plan to stick with G VS1 1.5+ cts. (or maybe F). And I am leaning toward the Vatche Tiffany repro for the setting. I just want this to be my last setting so I have to be sure I have my forever stone.

We have one more thing in common, my left ring finger is a 5.5 and I like them to be a little loose (5.75 for some). and I wear about a 6.25 on my right hand! I agree that if you only wear the 5 stone band on your left hand that resizing might be a good idea.