ok....THANK YOU!! during my whole reset process i kept staring at michael b. willing the heads to be prettier!! i know there are different options for the prongs - rounded, squared, etc. but still. and i don''t like that point that covers the culet. with his reputation, his quality of workmanship, and all the people here who confirm his settings are just beautiful, i wanted so badly to love his rings, reset my diamond into one, and happily call it a day. but i just knew even if i LOVED everything else about them and even with the mind-cleanness of his workmanship, the head would just always put a wee damper on it.Date: 10/14/2007 11:32:06 PM
Author: Gypsy
You know, I love Micheal B''s shank and band designs and his quality... but MAN, the line has some of the ugliest heads on settings I''ve ever seen. They ruin the settings for me. What is up with that head?
yes, i should note that i have not seen michael b. in person and that can make all the difference. however, my stone is 1ct and a princess cut, so from what i could gather the prongs would have looked like the pic posted here - straight up and postlike, rather than a bit curved. i had the ''tall, erect, boxy'' look already and i always really disliked it. ''course, it wasn''t a michael b., or even close....Date: 10/15/2007 9:21:46 AM
Author: mrssalvo
you know, based on the pics I didn''t like the head either and I know almost everyone here hates it. but I just tried on his 3 sided princess last week and I actually *liked* the head. Maybe it was the fact that it held a 3 carat stone so it didn''t appear so blocky but when I had it on it was just a stunning set to me and the head didn''t distract at all, but I can certainly understand why most gals here don''t like it....
Date: 10/15/2007 10:32:05 AM
Author: musey
I posted awhile back about 3 of his eternity bands (trois, crown lace and petite princess) and all the lovely PSers told me to go a different direction because they didn't have cleaning holes under the band. This one appears to have none, as well. Just something to be aware of!
Date: 10/15/2007 1:11:24 PM
Author: musey
MrsSalvo, I sure with there were a solid answer to this question! Here is that thread. I still really love those bands.
thanks mrssalvo! i sure hope so - it has hardly anything i set out for but it just struck me right when i saw it.Date: 10/15/2007 12:49:02 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Date: 10/15/2007 10:32:05 AM
Author: musey
I posted awhile back about 3 of his eternity bands (trois, crown lace and petite princess) and all the lovely PSers told me to go a different direction because they didn''t have cleaning holes under the band. This one appears to have none, as well. Just something to be aware of!
i *think* aljdewey actually had WF make her wedding band without the holes b/c she said something like less chance for grime and dirt from your hands to get in. I personally would not have said to go a different direction do to the lack of holes. Michael b makes one of the best pave products available and I guess he found success without them. You are right though, the general consenses here is to have the holes for better cleaning etc.
rainy, I suspect you are correct about the setting with a princess. I think you made the perfect choice on how to set your stone!!
Mrs.S which Michael B do yo think you will get??? How exciting!!!Date: 10/15/2007 1:37:30 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Date: 10/15/2007 1:11:24 PM
Author: musey
MrsSalvo, I sure with there were a solid answer to this question! Here is that thread. I still really love those bands.
thanks musey, i never saw your thread. i know Richard sherwood said on here that the holes were a good thing too. still, unless my hubby completly strays (which is possible b/c i''ve been so indecisive) MB will probably be my upgrade setting so the lack of holes don''t bother me in the least. maybe i''m foolish but i trust the quality and workmanship of his settings and I plan on still using the ultrasonic with it. Also, I have also heard that the solid metal makes the ring stronger/more durable.either way, they are gorgeous bands and everyone has to choose what they think is right for them.
ETA: i just sent and email off to hopefull explain the lack of holes in the MB rings. I''ll post what I find out.
Date: 10/15/2007 5:10:01 PM
Author: Kasey3
Mrs.S which Michael B do you think you will get??? How exciting!!!
Thanks for the info!!! I was worried-I felt that I had finally decided on the MB petite lace, and then I read the thread and my heart sank. So thanks so much!!!Date: 10/15/2007 4:22:00 PM
Author: mrssalvo
ok, here is the reason Michael B does not make the holes:
Traditionally, yellow gold was in vogue and the yellow background made the
diamonds look yellow, so holes were used to avoid the yellowing effect of
yellow gold.
MB focused on platinum for bridal and the diamonds actually looked
whiter with the reflection of the pure white metal beneath the diamond.
Also, holes in the back often result in lotion and other residue coming up
into the hole and making the diamonds filthy, forcing you to constantly use
ultra sonic cleaners which in turn loosen the diamonds.
Finally, holes are most often seen in jewelry that is cast to save the
manufacturer money on the amount of metal being used, so that you end up
with a more flimsy and less structurally integrous ring.
We make everything by hand, so structurally the ring is more sound, more
pure, more solid and more beautiful.
A jeweler making a ring by hand won''t sit there and drill holes in the back
on purpose, that comes straight out of a wax/mold process which also results
in greater porosity than hand made jewelry.
I''m sure there are other theories and opinions out there, but since it''s a MB ring in question I thought it appropriate to post their reasons for the lack of holes.
musey, i''m going to post this over in your thread too since it''s really where this answer belongs
You are so right!!! You won''t be diappointed with any of those, they are all so beautiful!!!Date: 10/15/2007 5:25:53 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Date: 10/15/2007 5:10:01 PM
Author: Kasey3
Mrs.S which Michael B do you think you will get??? How exciting!!!
i gave my hubby a small folder of a few settings. the petite princess is in there along with a new 3 stone that has pear sides. there are a couple of other setting in there is well but hubby has known my longstanding passion for MB so my *guess* is he will choose one. I love the petite lace too. he makes so many beautiful settings it really is hard to choose!!
a big round ofDate: 10/15/2007 4:22:00 PM
Author: mrssalvo
ok, here is the reason Michael B does not make the holes:
Traditionally, yellow gold was in vogue and the yellow background made the
diamonds look yellow, so holes were used to avoid the yellowing effect of
yellow gold.
MB focused on platinum for bridal and the diamonds actually looked
whiter with the reflection of the pure white metal beneath the diamond.
Also, holes in the back often result in lotion and other residue coming up
into the hole and making the diamonds filthy, forcing you to constantly use
ultra sonic cleaners which in turn loosen the diamonds.
Finally, holes are most often seen in jewelry that is cast to save the
manufacturer money on the amount of metal being used, so that you end up
with a more flimsy and less structurally integrous ring.
We make everything by hand, so structurally the ring is more sound, more
pure, more solid and more beautiful.
A jeweler making a ring by hand won't sit there and drill holes in the back
on purpose, that comes straight out of a wax/mold process which also results
in greater porosity than hand made jewelry.
I'm sure there are other theories and opinions out there, but since it's a MB ring in question I thought it appropriate to post their reasons for the lack of holes.
musey, i'm going to post this over in your thread too since it's really where this answer belongs
Date: 10/15/2007 8:08:43 PM
Author: rainydaze
i must say though, for a moment my heart dropped. reading this made me think 'shoot! what did i do! maybe i really should have explored the michael b. avenue more.....' because really, the reason i think i could not commit to the ritani halo was because i wanted their design, but workmanship akin to michael b's. would i have had the best of both words with a michael b - delicate look but sturdier feel? would it have blown me away so much that i wouldn't have minded no halo, or no sidestones, and stickup prongs? ack!?!
but then i remembered i found the eli, and all is well. love the design, love their workmanship (what i've seen at least, and the positive reviews from fellow PSers helped. cross my fingers!). phew! close one!
ETA: mrssalvo, i keep meaning to say that i cannot wait to see what your DH chooses for you! i have been following your journey and i am dying to know what it's gonna be! i'm sorry if i did not follow closely enough, and missed this, but when might we all find out? some special occasion when the decision will be unveiled? something happening soon?
Date: 10/12/2007 11:29:27 PM
Author:liz
This appears to be a new addition to the Michael B. collection at Pearlman’s. I love the design and have never seen anything quite like it. Does anyone out there own this ring, and if so, how comfortable is it?