Anyone own this Michael B. ring?

[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?

 

[mrssalvo]

Hi Liz,
It''s very new to the MB collection so I''m not sure a Pricescoper owns one yet. Pearlmans has been known to send settings out to folks with interest so you may give them a call. If you have a MB retailer near you they can order one into the store if they don''t have it in stock as well.

 

[Kasey3]

I don''t own one, but I just tried it on last night. The ring is beautiful, and seems comfortable-though I only had it on for about a minute.

 

[diamondringlover]

Thats pretty

 

[Elmorton]

Oh I looooooooooove that band. Somebody on PS needs to get it quick and post hand shots!!!

 

[amy_dub]

It''s beautiful! I''d love to see one with colored stones in it.. like aquamarine! How much was this ring??

 

[liz]

The price at Pearlman''s is $4,200. There''s also a matching engagement ring, but I prefer the band alone.

 

[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?

 

[liz]

I agree, the diamond crusted prongs are overkill. But I''m sure they could switch out the head for one of their simpler, more delicate ones, like the Petite Princess. Still, I think the twisted shank looks better as a solo band.

 

[rainydaze]

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?

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.

 

[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....

 

[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!

 

[rainydaze]

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....

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....

every time i came upon a swoopy head i just loved.... sure enough it was holding a big ol'' diamond (and usually an RB of course) and i had the sneaking suspicion it wouldn''t translate the same to my lil'' one, even if i had it set really really low to try and get some curve out of it.

 

[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!!

 

[musey]

MrsSalvo, I sure with there were a solid answer to this question! Here is that thread. I still really love those bands.

 

[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.

 

[rainydaze]

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!!

thanks mrssalvo! i sure hope so - it has hardly anything i set out for but it just struck me right when i saw it.

when i was looking at pave rings myself, i contemplated the holes issue as well. i think i side with using an ultrasonic anyway because i like a good clean, and i was willing to take my chances with something made by top designers such as michael b., assuming i ended up with one. i think i even asked bill pearlman about using an ultrasonic with pave from the designers he carries and i believe his opinion was that they are so well made, using one would be ok. my point (which i am getting to roundabout) is that my assumption is if you are using a US to clean, the holes may not be as important as the US is going to tease the dirt out from behind the diamonds anyway (again, my assumption, feel free to correct me if i''m wrong about this!). but if you''re not willing to risk using a US, maybe the holes become a little more important as they will certainly help.

hey liz - i''m sorry i''ve contributed to this thread getting off track! your post brought up some interesting topics!

 

[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

 

[Kasey3]

I was at Michael C Fina on Fri , and I went there to so the Michael B line as I am seriously considering the petite lace for my upgrade. I have been there several times in the last 2 years, but this time my main goal was to check out the head and decide whether or not I could live with it. The petite lace had a 1.2 fakey stone in it, and to tell you the truth I thought the head was very pretty and unique. In the pictures on the websites it looks chunky, weird, and the prongs look huge, but in real life it is not that way at all. The head (IMO) fits the settings well. So I agree with Mrs.S, I think you need to view the ring in person. Another thing I really liked about the setting is how well made it was-it definately weighed more than other designer settings that I tried on-and the pave work is beautiful.

 

[Kasey3]

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.

Mrs.S which Michael B do yo think you will get??? How exciting!!!

 

[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!!

 

[Kasey3]

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

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!!!

 

[Kasey3]

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!!

You are so right!!! You won''t be diappointed with any of those, they are all so beautiful!!!

 

[Gypsy]

MsS... I didn''t know you were going with Micheal B!! Oh I can''t wait to see what hubby picks out!

It''s funny, my halo is handmade, and I specifically requested the holes from Ocean, but they are TINY from what she''s told me as the melee themselves are very small. Interesting reading on the Michael B feedback though. Food for thought!

The only settings of Michael B''s I''ve paid attention to in person (seen quite a few, but I''ve only ogled, on my hand, and from different angles a couple) and one is the lace rounded setting with the three stones on the top of the cluster and the two stones on either side... which I really wanted a swoopier head on, personally, and the trios collection for an EC which was so blingy and beautiful that I was just in awe. I have seen others in the case, and well... the heads aren''t for me. I haven''t seen that one in person though.

I totally agree that you have to see the settings in perso. With other designers rings, like the Daniel K, I''ve noticed that the rings can look SO very different on and IRL than they do in these huge magnified pics, that it''s really hard to tell what you will like and won''t like in person and what will look good on your hand. That''s why I didn''t want to see my ring in pics, but wanted to wait to see it IRL when it was completed. So long story short, I have not liked MB''s heads in person either, but that''s just a personal choice... if that lace setting I had on my hand had a different head though... I would have been the proud owner of that setting years ago! I even considered having the clusters replicated, but as I''ve seen them in person, and seen one replication on here that I didn''t like.. I don''t think replicated clusters would be anything other than a pale imitation of the original.

 

[rainydaze]

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

a big round of

mrssalvo!! that question has been asked many times and it is nice to have this explanation - thank you for being proactive and getting it!

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?

 

[mrssalvo]

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?

Rainy, I think you made the perfect choice for your stone adn so glad you remembered that too. Eli is a wonderful designer as well and I know you will be very happy with your new ring.

i honestly am not sure when it's going to be. we had a few life issues delay things a bit and just didn't want to spend $ on a luxury purchase until those things were settled. the settings i like are all

so it's just taken time which i was willing to give b/c i've waited so long and didn't want to compromise. I can tell you we are visiting pearlman's next month though and hubby is making this trip with me, so if things go according to plan, hopefully not to terribly much longer..

when do you expect to see your new ring?

 

[rainydaze]

mrssalvo, i''m sorry to hear there have been ''life things'', i hope all is okay. lucky you, making a (second!) trip to pearlman''s!!! we almost did the same considering my indecision and their selection, and also considering i could have flown out for the amount it cost me to send some rings back to him! though, something tells me that would have given me TOO many choices!

i''m glad to hear it might happen soon and i''m soooooo excited to see what he chooses for you!!!

my diamond arrived to bill yesterday and he estimated 4 weeks for eli to make the ring. so i''m guessing around the end of november?

 

[mrssalvo]

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?

liz, i don''t know if you care anymore, but I just saw this ring today in person and tried it on. honestly I did not think I''d really like it, especially with the e-ring but surprising it was a lovely set and looked really pretty on. anyway, the wedding band was very comfy, not scratchy at all and didn''t bother my fingers when I closed them together.

 

[E B]

mrssalvo,

I have a band with holes, and I was basically told the opposite; that dirt, lotion, etc. is going to behind the diamonds from the top, and without the holes, there'd be no way to properly clean the melee. That explanation makes more sense to me, but I'm not an expert.

(FWIW, my ring didn't originally have holes, but my jeweler advised me to have them put in when he put the diamonds in.)

 

[mrssalvo]

ebree, like most things I guess you just have to research and choose what to believe. I did notice when looking on Leon''s site that his pave rings don''t have the holes either so my guess there is some truth to what MB is saying about handmade designers not wanting to add them in plus the holes affecting the structal integrity of the ring makes sense to me as well, but i''m no expert either. However, having them for cleaning definitely makes sense too. i surely wouldn''t hesitate to buy a MB ring b/c of no holes, and I also wouldn''t hesitate to buy a ring with the holes if I like it well enough. I don''t think they are a deal breaker either way which in musey''s thread the lack of holes became a huge deal. just my .02