A. Jaffe Thin Pave/Prong Engagement Set

[Patty]

Date: 1/6/2005 6:52

8 PM
Author: TL1
demelza i thought i was going to faint when i saw those pictures, i am overwhelmed... those are gorgeous, but i am so confused i found what appears to be the same ones and the price is over 8 grand...

can you clarify it shows as 8763 dollars?

http://www.thefacetscollection.com/item.cfm?item_id=915

TL1, the set shown at Facets includes the 1.01 H, VS1 center diamond.

 

[Mara]

If there was one thing I could change about my e-ring it would be to make it thinner, it''s 2.8mm and my center stone is 7.1mm. It still makes the stone look big, but I would prefer a 2mm or similar thinness, definitely under 2.5mm. My wedding ring is 2.3mm and I could definitely see the thinness difference, I think my center stone would look better on a thinner band. But oh well! Too late for me, but not for you.

 

[TLS]

thank you patty I think i am brain dead from working all day...

doesn't this seem like to good to be true then? wow this seems almost too good of a deal then if you can buy them separately without the stone. i am floored, it reminds me of the michael b.

 

[TLS]

that setting that demelza put on here is stunning, I think my only question for demelza, or anyone familiar with it is whether the head where the stone sits is totally closed on the bottom? does it let light in through the bottom.

that is really beautiful - I love it!

 

[teebee]

Kaili ~ If you emailed Signed Pieces about that 3-ring set & haven''t heard back, I would suggest trying again. I sent an email a few days ago asking what the price would be for just the engagement ring w/out the other 2 bands or the center stone & I got a reply back w/in 2 hours so they were incredibly responsive. At the time I was waiting on a quote from Whiteflash and if they''re quote had been cost prohibitive for me (it wasn''t) then I probably would have gone with the signed pieces/facets ring.

TL1 ~ they were so quick to respond to my questions, I think if you called or emailed w/ your question you''d hear back pretty quick, that is if no one here knows the answer.

 

[TLS]

thanks teebee, i think i will do that tomorrow.

I think I am in love.

the only thing I might want slightly modified for me would be the head so it had more light filtering into it from the bottom, but what do i know? either way it is gorgeous... darn i guess i couldn''t really wear the matching bands right away since I am not even married yet

Time to jump on a plane and head to vegas!!!

wonder if they would make something almost identical with a slightly modified head? also it seems like they offer in half sizes and i just found out my ring size is closer to a 4 than the 4.5 that i thought. apparently my jeweler was a little horrified with how easily i could take off my rings - guess you should have to tug a little? oh well! I don''t want it too tight in case my hands swell in the summer.

I assume any jeweler would make a ring without a problem in a 4.25 size right if you ask? That would be my compromise since i found the 4 very tough to get off. My jeweler wanted me to go with the 4, but i felt it was just too snug!

 

[Mara]

Date: 1/6/2005 8:24:29 PM
Author: TL1

the only thing I might want slightly modified for me would be the head so it had more light filtering into it from the bottom,

I don't know that you'd really want to have the head modified so that light filtered in from the BOTTOM, diamonds are not created to reflect back any light that they pick up from the sides or bottom, it's from the top down. That is why you can place a diamond into a bezel or similar and have it reflect back basically the same amount of light it would if it was in an open 4 pronged setting or a tension or similar. Well cut stones that is.

Open 4 pronged settings or similar where you see the diamond, are basically for show, when people want to see more of their diamond aka from the sides etc. But you can't see from the bottom up since the ring is on your finger, and no additional light will be coming in. Just a note.

Edited to add that the SP images look like a typical 4 pronged setting with openings on the side and a typical closed bottom. Nothing seemingly unusual at all.

 

[TLS]

thanks mara i didn''t realize that wouldn''t have any effect. I thought i had learned so much but i realize I am learning something new everyday. My jeweler even implied the same thing - yikes!

thanks for the heads up - ok so I guess it doesn''t matter afterall!

 

[TLS]

just thought of another question. if the bottom is closed wouldn''t it make it harder to clean? I guess nothing should be getting down there if it is closed, but i am clueless so i thought i would ask....

 

[Demelza]

Ditto what Mara said regarding light coming through the bottom of the stone. It doesn''t make any difference whether the bottom is open or closed.

It probably would be easier to clean if there were a hole in the bottom, but I don''t think it makes a huge difference one way or another.

Mara, do you think that a 2.4 mm band for a 7.4 mm stone is a good balance?

I, too, have found SP to be responsive to emails. Try them again. I think they have been busy since the holidays processing special orders (like mine, I hope)

 

[TLS]

demelza fantastic choice on this purchase, the ring is stunning and you will be sure to get a lot of compliments! Thanks for bringing these pictures to my attention, I will be calling them..

thanks

 

[Mara]

I think a 7.4mm stone on a 2.4mm band would be fabulous!! I want to see pictures!

TL.. when you say ''closed bottom'' it''s important to clarify that almost ALL standard solitaire style settings are going to have a ''closed bottom'' which I think is what you mean when you refer to the head bottom, where all the prongs intersect? That has to be closed if you are doing something like a traditional head. If you want more of the bottom of the diamond exposed, you''d probably want something like a tension setting?

You can''t see the SP head very well, so this may be causing confusion, but it looks like any other 4 prong regular solitaire head, aka like a Tiffany style, where the sides are exposed in the prongs and then the prongs all meet at the bottom. Definitely not a problem to clean as long as your diamond is not ''stuffed'' into the setting but rather leaves some space between the diamond and prongs (they usually curve around the diamond slightly) and culet and bottom. You should be fine with any typical type head.

 

[rms]

Date: 1/6/2005 11:42:29 AM
Author: Demelza
Yes, I''m getting the entire set in platinum, but I''m not getting all three rings. I already have the matching wedding band and I''m waiting for the matching engagement ring to arrive sometime this month (so hard to wait!!). Three rings would be too much for me as I don''t have very long fingers.

The rings shown have approx. .78 cttw in each band. They are, I believe, 2mm wide. My rings will be 2.4 mm each. My diamond is 7.4 mm, so I thought a slightly thicker band would look better. The stone in the picture is an 80 pointer.

Signedpieces is a great company. I was very happy with the quality of my wedding band. The diamonds are very sparkly, white, and clean.

Hey Demelza, are you having your e-ring band customized for you somehow? you we saying where you posted the first pics that the total carat weight for the e-ring was about 1.14. I might be confused.

TL1 & Mara, I have to try and work the 2 digital cameras that we have and figure out the whole macro mode thing. I know from reading here in many places that there is a way, I just haven''t done it yet. I will post pics as soon as I can.

TL1, I like to wear my rings a little loose as well. I get so unhappy if I feel it super tight around my fingers. I think my ring size is like a 6 or 6 1/4 but I got my Jaffe set in 6 1/2. Right now my e-ring alone is definitely looser than I think is good. I am going to wait until summer comes along to see how they feel wearing all 3 rings, then I''ll decide if I want to resize or put sizing balls in or something. I contemplated forever on the eternity style like the Michael B princess rings (and Mara''s beautiful rings, and I think lsmathis1''s'' ring is spectacular) , or half way around like the Jaffe, but I went with Jaffe because it would be easier to resize...jeez, am I picky or what?!?!? Plus I really love the square shank and the little Jaffe signature on the bottom of all 3 shanks, both sides. It''s fun.

I got really used to my thin Tiffany setting that my husband got me when we first got engaged. I think that is another reason why I loved the thinness of the Jaffe set. Plus when I stack all 3 together, that will be pretty FAT.

I''m psyched for all of you gals shopping and can''t wait to see all of your rings too!! It is almost sad for me to be done shopping for rings, so now I''m living through all of you. My husband just shakes his head at me when he sees me on PS!

 

[Demelza]

Rita,

Here's the story: I've had my engagment ring stone in a platinum stuller solstice mounting for quite some time. My plan has always been to switch settings only if I find something I absolutely love. In the process of looking for wedding bands, I came across SP's vast collection of eternity bands. I ordered their 1.14 cttw shared-prong platinum eternity band to see how it would look with my solitaire. Needless to say, I was very pleased. Then I came across this wedding set and inquired whether they could custom make the engagement ring portion to accomodate my diamond and match my wedding band. No problem, they said. So, that's the story. Hope that clears up the confusion.

I've also been struggling a lot with ring size decisions. Because these are eternity bands, they are virtually unsizable. SP told me, however, that it is in fact possible to go up 1/4 size on an eternity band by scraping out just a tiny bit of metal. I too like to wear my rings loose, but since my wedding band is a size 6, I figured the engagement ring should be the exact same size. I just hope it's not too uncomfortable. When my hands are cold, size 6 is a little big. But when they are warm, it feels just a bit snug.

I can't wait to see pictures of everyone's rings!!

 

[Mara]

one comment on the ring size the same for both rings...i did this (size 6) and have found that while the e-ring by itself was loose enough to move around my finger a bit (i have larger knuckles so it never went anywhere), now with both rings together, i immediately found that they were more snug and hardly move at all. in fact sometimes i feel they are too tight.

sometimes i think that maybe my finger has gained a bit of weight, but then i recall immediately within a week after getting married that they felt snug. i attributed it to the humid weather in hawaii and then tahiti but they never really loosened up again. when i take off one ring and just wear the other, it again feels more movable.

this has started to bother me to the point that i am considering having the rings sized up slightly that 1/4 to see if it helps...or at least one ring only. i normally like my rings a bit loose and literally at night before i take them off i have to wet my finger to get them off! sometimes they scrape my knuckle and cause a cut! it was never like that before with one ring.

so anyway, i have heard that the 1/4 larger of one ring than the other is not unheard of and i also heard from a few people that it may be recommended if you do not like snug rings. i would mention it to your jeweler and see what they think, also try on a few rings that are your size and then maybe slightly bigger with your e-ring (or w-ring, whichever you have already) and see what you think.

good luck!

 

[rms]

Demelza&Mara, I totally agree with the points Mara makes on ring sizes and wearing more than 1 ring, which is the equivalent of wearing a wide ring over a thin one. What complicated things for me was that people said to me that you could take your ring to one jeweler to measure the size, and then to another and another, and you would get slightly different answers because their tools are not all calibrated perfectly. As crazy as it seems to some, 1/4 of a ring size seems to make a difference to me in how I feel wearing the rings from day to day, or even over the course of 1 day. So that''s why I am waiting until summer to see how my rings feel wearing 3 together.

I also have my mom''s gold wedding band that I wear from when my parents got married. It is about 5 mm wide and very flat. I love it because it is so sentimental to me, and I really love yellow gold. Anyway, my mom was tiny, so I had the ring resized to fit my finger (they just stretched it). I told them to resize it to a 6 1/2, and I absolutely HATED wearing it because it still felt too tight. So I got it stretched a little more to about 6 3/4. The jeweler said not to blame them if after stretching it the second time it was too loose. I picked up the ring, put it on, and laughed to myself because it was TOO LOOSE at that moment!! BUT, wearing it day to day it is perfect to me. There are so many times when it leaves a mark on my finger where I was wearing it because my fingers were more swollen. And I never have to struggle to get them off.

Maybe all of us who like to wear rings loose should just make sure we have good insurance!!

 

[Demelza]

Mara and Rms,

What would your advice be regarding size, then? I was thinking that I would order it in a size 6 so that if I needed it to be made bigger, I could. But then again, my current solitaire is a size 6 1/4 and I''ve never had any problems with it. Do you think it would be weird if there is a 1/4 size difference between the wedding ring and engagment ring. I don''t think it''s too late to tell them to make it a size 6 1/4. My only concern is that I''ve gone back and forth so many times, I''m worried they are going to think I''m nuts.

 

[Demelza]

Well, SP just called to confirm my order and, after talking with David, I decided that I would order the ring in a 6 1/4. I think that is the right decision. He didn''t think there would be any problem if the wedding band was just a tad smaller than the engagment ring. He said the engagement ring will have 22 diamonds for a tcw of 1.05. The wedding band has 24 diamonds and a tcw of 1.14. Anyway, I''m just so excited, I can''t stand it!!

 

[Kaili]

Teebee,
I just PM''d you.

 

[rms]

Demelza,
If you''re happy with the decision, it sounds good to me. I''ll definitely be interested to hear how they feel when you get them and wear them a while. I know they are going to be gorgeous!

 

[Mara]

I think the decision sounds great, Demelza! I can''t wait to see pictures!!

 

[TLS]

Hi - I just found this quote from an old post from Garry cut nut - it sounds like some diamonds will appear brighter if they have open settings? I thought the setting didn''t matter ? I guess maybe it makes a difference on diamonds that aren''t as well cut, but probably doesn''t matter much for an ideal or well cut stone? What do you guys think.

We have taken Sergey''s findings into account in our choice of lighting models (ideal-light) and discussed this issue in our newsletter in December.
http://www.ideal-scope.com/newsletter_issue_003.asp
"Pale pink in the table area is normal. It is not as bad as it appears.

A small amount of girdle leakage aids contrast. The pale area only leaks 25% and returns 75%. "

"Tip: Diamonds with leakage look brighter and more firey in high open backed ring settings, so light can get in the back."

The HCA and Ideal-Scope Cut Quality Crusader!

 

[Mara]

The important part of the quote is ''with leakage'' as you noted, well-cut will make a difference.

 

[TLS]

right i assume even a diamond with a very small amount of leakage would still not make a difference, at least that is what i am hoping now that i found out my diamond has a little tiny bit of leakage!

that is now totally pissing me off! what a brat i am being I guess.... I need to focus on the fact that i was fortunate to find a high quality diamond in the odd size range i was looking for (1.39) - those odd sizes are tough to come by....

 

[Mikeabo]

Like many of you we loved the picture of the Michael B. settings and wanted to look at A. Jaffe as a cheaper but beautiful alternative. A couple days ago my gilfriend and I went to look at the A. Jaffe setting discussed in this thread. To say that we were disapointed would be an understatement. The diamonds in the band seemed to have very little sparkle. Today we are going to a store to take a look at the Michael B. ring in person. We are very excited and would be shocked if we have the same reaction as we did to the A. Jaffe.

When looking at the underside of the A. Jaffe ring I noticed that there are very small holes under each diamond. Is the problem that not much light can pass through the diamonds in the A. Jaffe setting? It appeared to have very small holes on the underside of the ring and the prongs blocked the side of the diamonds. Anybody else have any other imput or experience with this ring in person?

Thank you,
Michael

 

[TLS]

that is bizarre because when i tried on the A. Jaffe at my jeweler the diamonds were very sparkly. Does A. Jaffe use different grades of diamonds? I am wondering if the ring wasn''t clean - maybe it was a setting they use for show that needed to be cleaned? kind of concerning if there is not a consistency with their melee. If i bought this I would definitely want it to look like the one i saw in the store I visited!

the other scary thing, Mikeabo, is that with jewelry store lights even crappy cut diamonds usually look decent, so I wonder what it would have looked like out in the real world?

I would think A. Jaffe would be using well cut melee, I wouldn''t think they would want to risk crappy melee stones that might tarnish their reputation/name...

bizarre.... I wonder why...did you ask your jeweler what the deal was with the stones not looking good?

 

[rms]

Michael,
That''s a bummer that you were disappointed. I am staring at my rings right now and they certainly sparkle plenty in my eye...and they are a bit dirty too. My diamonds are the higher grade of diamonds that they use. While I do know something about those diamonds they use, I do not know everything about them. I highly doubt that they are perfect, but I guess I personally didn''t see all of that as crucial. That might be a dangerous thing to say on PS, but there you go. What I enjoyed was that when I looked at the rings, I loved them, and although I absolutely adored the ONE Michael B princess ring I could have bought for my e-ring, I went with buying a THREE ring Jaffe set for essentially the same price.

You see those holes in many rings...the SP rings Demelza posted here show them as well. I would undoubtedly support the fact that the Michael B rings have a far higher degree of uniqueness and beauty in the workmanship than the Jaffe rings, which certainly applies to part of the cost difference between the 2 designs.

You should definitely go with what you come to love after you and your girlfriend take all of your criteria into consideration.
Have fun shopping.
Rita

 

[Mara]

My eternity bands have holes in the bottom as well...I''ve seen them in alot of rings, I think maybe it has something to do with cleaning ease? Of course it''s hard to get them clean regardless.

The AJ ones we tried on at our jeweler as well were super sparkly, just as sparkly as my e-ring stones...

The MB rings as well are mega sparkle...almost anything with tiny set stones like that would be even if they are dirty.

 

[pajj]

I am in the process of finding a setting and I like the settings on this thread. The center diamond will be a 1.76 carat round and is 7.83 mm. What width size, for the band, do you think would be a good match for my diamond? My girlfriend''s ring size is approximately 5.25.

 

[rms]

pajj,

I think it would look great in any of the sets mentioned in this thread. There have been other recent posts on the Ritani endless love rings which are also very similar and gorgeous.