shape
carat
color
clarity

Help on deciding between d vatche royal crown 163 or 119 crown and any pictures?

Z3ke

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
3
by Z3ke » 3 minutes ago
Good morning,

New to the forum and would like an opinion and any live pictures of anyone that owns the d. vatche engagement rings royal crown 119 & 163.

I have a loose stone I have acquired already which is about 1.3ct, superideal.

Hoping for some pictures so I can decide between the two royal crowns to buy in platinum.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
I prefer the 163 head a hundred times over the other. However, these rings were popular here years ago, and they fell out of favor because better options have come along. The one thing I do not like is that the shanks are too wide. 2mm is a good width and maybe up to 2.3mm. But some of these rings are 2.5-3mm which is going to make your stone look smaller.

So, if you are totally set on one of these, I'd go with the 163 and see if they will customize and make the shank (band) no wider than 2.3mm.

The other recommendation is to specifically request a particular platinum alloy that is harder than their standard alloy. Ask for 90% platinum and 10% iridium or 95% platinum and 5% ruthenium. They did not charge extra when some of us got settings from them.

If you are open to other settings, I can show you some beautiful ones. Or if you are buying the setting from your diamond vendor, we could also recommend other options.
 

kmarla

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
690
I just recently had my diamond set in the royal crown 119 nine months ago. I had the shank modified to 2mm. It is a beautiful setting and at the time I ordered it I had never come across any negative reviews. I still think it's quite beautiful but I'm in the midst of looking for a new setting because after wearing it for a little while I realized that a couple of details bothered me. I admit I'm probably very detail oriented. The six prongs aren't all the same size because of the trellis type design. The prongs in the north and south position are wider/larger than the others. The other thing is that I can see a tiny lip of metal on the side of the diamond when I look down at it and this was really bothering me. It's very hard sometimes to choose a setting from a picture without being able to see it in person. I think I'll end up having a new custom setting done locally. I'll attach a couple of pictures of my ring.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0128.JPG
    IMG_0128.JPG
    151.3 KB · Views: 92
  • IMG_0066.JPG
    IMG_0066.JPG
    65.5 KB · Views: 60
Last edited:

kmarla

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
690
Don't know why the attachments aren't showing. I'll try again. IMG_0066.JPG IMG_0128.JPG
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
I am sorry you weren't happy with the 119, kmarla. Your issues are exactly what bothers me about that setting. The great thing for the original poster is that you have confirmed that they modified the shank to a smaller width, so if he goes for the 163, he should be able to get it made in 2.0-2.2mm.
 

december-fire

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
2,385
I am sorry you weren't happy with the 119, kmarla. Your issues are exactly what bothers me about that setting. The great thing for the original poster is that you have confirmed that they modified the shank to a smaller width, so if he goes for the 163, he should be able to get it made in 2.0-2.2mm.

diamondseeker2006/kmarla, What are your thoughts on the Vatche 1513 Felicity from the Serenity Collection?

Not sure if Z3ke would be interested in it, but it seems like a nice 6-prong solitaire.
The shank width is listed as being from 2.1 mm to 1.5 mm.

Adding a couple of photos; from WF website and the Vatche website.

It seems to me as though the one on the Vatche website has prongs which appear from the profile to be more U-shaped than V-shaped. Size of stone? Just my imagination? :confused2:

https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...-solitaire-engagement-ring-by-vatche-1614.htm
http://www.dvatche.com/index.php?page=collection&catID=2,19&id=158&alt=1

WF website - Vatche 1513 Felicity.jpg


Vatche website - 1513 Felicity.png
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
December-fire, I love that design! But most of those rings in that collection are too thin! It is so weird they have some like the Royal Crown close to 3mm, and then the Felicity has such thin shank near the top! Apparently the 2mm is at the base and it tapers narrower to 1.5mm as it goes up. Plus it looks almost knife edge, so it would appear really thin. When I look at the actual finished ring pics, I don't like it as much. But you are right that it is a thinner version of the one above! I am just thinking that adapting the 163 to 2mm or so might be the easiest way to get it the right size!
 

rockysalamander

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
5,105
The Vatche 1515 is too thin. The shanks is only 1.65 mm, but due to the shape it is quite tall. My friend just replaced her as she found it too thin and tall for comfort. She found it really uncomfortable...it is very much like an extra thin knife edge. So, she went into a totally different direction to a Maevona Poppy Pave.

My favorite 6-prong is the custom version of the Danhov Solitaire posted by @alpha238 ackie to rework the prongs from 8 to 6 for her 1.2 ct round diamond. But, you do peak the metal of the petals from above and that might not make you happy @december-fire.

dsc05276.jpg

dsc05279.jpg

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/1-2ct-danhov-petal-prong-solitaire-in-platinum.207913/
 

kmarla

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
690
I am sorry you weren't happy with the 119, kmarla. Your issues are exactly what bothers me about that setting. The great thing for the original poster is that you have confirmed that they modified the shank to a smaller width, so if he goes for the 163, he should be able to get it made in 2.0-2.2mm.

Thanks Diamondseeker. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Yes, I had no trouble getting the shank modified. There was a small charge though of about $100 or so. I can't remember the cost exactly. I did it through Whiteflash and the setting was still eligible for their designer setting upgrade program.
 

Z3ke

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
3
I prefer the 163 head a hundred times over the other. However, these rings were popular here years ago, and they fell out of favor because better options have come along. The one thing I do not like is that the shanks are too wide. 2mm is a good width and maybe up to 2.3mm. But some of these rings are 2.5-3mm which is going to make your stone look smaller.

So, if you are totally set on one of these, I'd go with the 163 and see if they will customize and make the shank (band) no wider than 2.3mm.

The other recommendation is to specifically request a particular platinum alloy that is harder than their standard alloy. Ask for 90% platinum and 10% iridium or 95% platinum and 5% ruthenium. They did not charge extra when some of us got settings from them.

If you are open to other settings, I can show you some beautiful ones. Or if you are buying the setting from your diamond vendor, we could also recommend other options.

Thanks for the input and apologies for late reply, work has been really busy!

Im banking on the 163 as you said with the shank no wider than 2.3mm. the ring size is about 5.5. Im open to other suggestions that is similar looking to the 163. The diamond however is a 1.3 carat would this ring really make it look small?
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
Okay good! I think this ring is fine for a 1.3 ct stone as long as the shank is no wider than 2.3. Wide shanks tend to make the diamond look smaller. I once had a similar ring to the 163, but I would get the Vatche at this point.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top