Custom ring or no...

[flyfisher]

Hello everyone,
To y'all I'm probably best known as the boyfriend of rainbowtrout, that paragon of perfection, etc.

So I feel like I've known you for a little bit. But hi!
Anyway, she has promised not to read anything I post, so keep the secret please

.

Ok, on to details. I bought this for her: . I jest, I jest.

So this one:

Cert details-
1.55ct : 5.7x5.4x5.1mm
VS2 type II clarity GIA, unheated.
#362 AGL Color Scan. Very good brilliancy; approx. 5% windowing.

She's seen the stone. We're very happy with it. The exact design of the ring's going to be a secret, though. Have to keep some surprise in the whole business, yes?

On to the ring. We've identified some requirements:
* Band should be 2mm or so. She has small fingers.
* Ruled out side stones/baguettes. Instead, pave either all the way around or 1/3 of the way down. I personally much prefer the 1/3 of the way around, and she agrees (after only a little bit of pressuring

).
* Milgraining (sp?) on either side of the pave.
* No channel set (she doesn't like).
* Basket setting.
* 4 prong, probably double prongs.

Some examples of similar:

The Cartier 1895. We looked at it in a store and liked it a lot. Simple. If she didn't really want pave in her heart of hearts (no matter how much she denies it and says she can live without, I can tell she really really wants it and she always comes back to it), this would be the perfect setting. Besides, the sapphire/diamond contrast is nice. I like the shape of the taper...nice and slow, not to a narrow bridge like some do. Maybe fitting 4-5 pave diamonds down the taper, with the first two being smaller would work nicely.

This one's close, but a little clunky and obviously pave 4-5 stones instead of all the way around.

This one's very nice. The double prongs are a little too pointy, but with a little taper and the 1/3 pave instead of full, it would work very nicely.

So hopefully that gives you a general idea. One thing I haven't mentioned yet is that we both think that ending the pave into some engraving looks great, so there's an option there also.

On to the questions:
1. Whaddayathink?

Thoughts? Harsh criticism? Hatemail?
2. Who to go to? Aiming for under $1K here, hopefully less. Definitely in platinum, so I know that might be quite tight for something really quality. And quality is a requirement, obviously. (I know, I know, brilliant, high quality, inexpensive...I don't ask much, do I?)
3. Has anyone seen something very close to what I'm thinking pre-made? That would certainly help on the price issue....
4. Isn't she the greatest?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/24/2006 8:09:57 PM
Author:flyfisher

Has anyone seen something very close to what I'm thinking pre-made?

I don't think you'd like what similar things under 1k look like. Unless you get very lucky to find a vintage one - or find out there is a good bench jeweler in your family

Also, what is 'clunky' about that ring? Perhaps the pictures are not so hot - but usually the work coming out of that shop is.



Btw. This isn't close, but not a bad or too common setting either. Just a hunch. And what yo describe has been done by this shop on order already - you may want to ask for a quote, it can't hurt.

Not much help... I guess. Hope better in under way

 

[TheDoctor]

Take seriously this caution, my friend, when dictating dimensions which may be too fine for a ring/band which is going to be "perforated" to be pave'' set with small diamonds. In platinum, there will be issues with a 2 mm band that gets a bunch of holes drilled through it for diamonds. Best to re-define your definition of "clunky", becuase without some clunk, the ring will be junk. (Watch for my hip-hop recording, coming out this fall)

Also, I don''t know what you spent on the sapphire, but the poor platinumsmith who is going to make your ring has to eat, too.
Limiting your budget for a ring to set your precious stone into will backfire on you. You will regret not spending a little more and getting something which will survive the first year. Double your cost estimate and budget. You won''t regret the difference it will make.

 

[E B]

Hi Flyfisher! Welcome to PS! We've been waiting for you to post.

There's a setting widely loved on PS that fits every one of your requirements *but* the basket setting. If a basket setting is important to her, this might not be "the one"...but it IS a quality piece from a well-respected vendor. She'd be very happy with it otherwise.

http://www.signedpieces.com/item.cfm?item_id=3658

A setting that matches all of your requirements might be a hard one to find, but I'll definitely keep an eye out. Are you willing to bend on anything? Which things are most important?

 

[widget]

Hee hee...I just wanted to pop in and say WELCOME!!!

It''s always nice to meet PSers'' other halves.

I think "Flyfisher" is the PERFECT name for Ms Rainbowtrout!

That''s a gorgeous sapphire! It''ll look great whatever you decide to do!

Have fun!

widget

 

[E B]

Also, if you like the setting from Wink (with the claw prongs), you could ask him how much it'd be with just 4 stones on each side. It might get you close to where you want to be $ wise. Regarding the prongs, you could ask that they be softened, or even shaped like little hearts.

 

[Kaleigh]

Hi ya Flyfisher

Glad you joined the fun. That is a gorgeous sapphire you bought miss Rainbowtrout. Good luck with the setting. I love your ideas so far!!!

 

[E B]

Fly,

This one might work:

http://www.whiteflash.com/Engagement-Rings/Styles/Diamond-Settings/Platinum-Cathedral-Pave-Ring_929.htm#

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 1/24/2006 8:29:39 PM
Author: TheDoctor
Take seriously this caution, my friend, when dictating dimensions which may be too fine for a ring/band which is going to be ''perforated'' to be pave'' set with small diamonds. In platinum, there will be issues with a 2 mm band that gets a bunch of holes drilled through it for diamonds. Best to re-define your definition of ''clunky'', becuase without some clunk, the ring will be junk. (Watch for my hip-hop recording, coming out this fall)

Also, I don''t know what you spent on the sapphire, but the poor platinumsmith who is going to make your ring has to eat, too.
Limiting your budget for a ring to set your precious stone into will backfire on you. You will regret not spending a little more and getting something which will survive the first year. Double your cost estimate and budget. You won''t regret the difference it will make.

first, welcome! congratulations on selecting a color stone for this special ring!


second: i think TheDoctor has good advice. however, if you both plan that there will be an upgrade in the future, perhaps this is not as much an issue. but if she plans to wear this ring forever and always then i''d want to make sure that band was wider/heavier/thicker to withstand the daily wear.


movie zombie

 

[flyfisher]

Hi everyone! Thanks for the advice so far.
Some should''ve mentioneds:
* No hearts. Her preference.
* The budget can be a little flexible, but $1k is already pushing it. Certainly not averse to feeding the poor platinumsmith, though

. I guess with full pave on the Wink example (someone who IIRC is generally well-regarded around here) for $1300, I thought $1K would be possible.
* We want this to be it, for as long as we both...you know the rest. So upgrades are out. If that means more clunk, so be it I guess.
* From what she''s tried on (quite a lot at this point), 2mm or maybe 2.5 works best. The pave wouldn''t have to be largish diamonds like the shared prong picture posted. And because the pave would basically only be on the part of the band which came up towards the gem, would durability still be an issue?
* Basket''s definitely way up there in the list of happy things. There''s a local jeweler who has a good reputation and is willing to customize the stock rings he has by replacing prongs, basket, etc. Is that not easy to do?

Of everything suggested so far, this seems the closest, although a little more modern than I was thinking.

And I should clarify. A better term for the "clunky" I meant was "squarish." They are very nice rings I posted originally, just a little squarish for my tastes. She''s a little more keen on them than I, as best I can tell. If the budget isn''t enough to have exactly what I''m picturing, then I''ll start considering more compromise options. Hm.

Another question: if we buy from an online platinumsmith, would the ringmaker set it, or would we have to find someone local to (begrudgingly) set it?

Thanks

 

[flyfisher]

Asked sidelong about the examples:
It appears she likes the square ones I posted at the start more than I thought she did (yes, the "clunky" ones...I''m not averse to admitting I was wrong, especially in this process!). Milgraining on them she would like.

 

[flyfisher]

She also really likes this one:

It''s a little ornate for me, as well as almost certainly [$$)]

 

[Hest88]

There are a couple that might work at Antique Engagement Rings (http://antiqueengagementrings.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=22). I don''t think you''re going to get 2mm, since that''s really too narrow to get both the sparkle and the milgrain in most cases, but these are just slightly wider. This one is slightly over your price range at $1,225.00:

 

[flyfisher]

There are a couple that might work at Antique Engagement Rings (http://antiqueengagementrings.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=22). I don''t think you''re going to get 2mm, since that''s really too narrow to get both the sparkle and the milgrain in most cases, but these are just slightly wider. This one is slightly over your price range at $1,225.00:

That''s an interesting option. Not terribly fond of the prongs, and then there''s the concern that the sapphire is very deep. But definitely intriguing

 

[flyfisher]

Different option from antiqueengagementrings.com:

It''s going to be small to fit the stone, though.

 

[JDgirl]

Since you mentioned the Cartier 1895, I just thought I''d show you this...

http://betterthandiamond.com/diamonds/jewelry/rings/cartier1895.php

 

[JDgirl]

Here''s a pic, it has yummy prongs!

 

[Scintillating]

Date: 1/24/2006 8:09:57 PM
Author:flyfisher

This one's close, but a little clunky and obviously pave 4-5 stones instead of all the way around.

Thanks for insulting my setting.
Members DO read other forums on Pscope!

Scintillating...

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 1/25/2006 4:15:12 AM
Author: Scintillating

Date: 1/24/2006 8:09:57 PM
Author:flyfisher
This one''s close, but a little clunky and obviously pave 4-5 stones instead of all the way around.

Thanks for insulting my setting.
Scintillating...

I hear ya Scintillating ... I don''t think the newbie realized how insulting that would sound to us bling-lovers. He did "clarify" a little later with

"And I should clarify. A better term for the "clunky" I meant was "squarish." They are very nice rings I posted originally, just a little squarish for my tastes."

And then

"It appears she likes the square ones I posted at the start more than I thought she did (yes, the "clunky" ones...I''m not averse to admitting I was wrong, especially in this process!)."

You could always retaliate & insult his delicate sensibilities with the "worth every penny" price of your designer creation

But I doubt ya will!

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 1/24/2006 8:09:57 PM
Author:flyfisher
I like the shape of the taper...nice and slow, not to a narrow bridge like some do. Maybe fitting 4-5 pave diamonds down the taper, with the first two being smaller would work nicely.

Mark Morrel has a couple setting that have tapered pave on either side of the center stone. His site won''t let me "snipe" pix ... but here is a link ... you can scroll down the October work to see three or four similar examples

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Work-2004/

Honestly, I don''t think your budget is realistic for the kind of fine detail & workmanship you''re looking for. Also, we ladies on here are pretty proud of our rings, so please, please be delicate when copying pictures & commenting on them - especially of gals who literally just posted their brand new engagement ring TODAY!!!!

I''m sure you meant no harm .. but imagine that happening to Rainbow Trout THE DAY she posts pix of your future creation. Capiche?

 

[flyfisher]

Thanks for insulting my setting.
Members DO read other forums on Pscope!
Scintillating...

Small consolation now, I know, but I posted a picture of the setting because I
liked it. It was just a little more squarish than I was picturing in my head, which is what I meant by "clunky," an unfortunate term which I later corrected. I''m sorry if it sounded insulting. It really wasn''t intended to be in the slightest, particularly not for what I think is a beautiful setting.

Apologies,
flyfisher

 

[flyfisher]

I am an insensible cad. The pictures I''ve posted, I put up because I thought were stunning rings. I''m an idiot.
Sorry.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/25/2006 7:09:33 AM
Author: flyfisher
I am an insensible cad. The pictures I've posted, I put up because I thought were stunning rings. I'm an idiot.
Sorry.

LMAO! Forget it... It ain't that bad

Btw. the settings at 'Antiquengagementrings' can be made to fit the stone, so are most rings out there - they do not have to fit your stone off the bat, like a pair of shoes fits off the rack.

Between those are Wink's though - the price and quality seems to favor Wink, and the rings are very similar. Don't get to focused on things like... the shape of the prongs (fishtail - the squareish ones, roundish, claw...) because that could be changed to fit your taste - most of the time. It is at least worth asking.

Btw. the sapphire may be deep, but there's worse. It doesn't look like a very bad problem to me. Imagine most rings could fit princess cut diamonds - up to 80% deep.

 

[Angel7]

Flyfisher-Welcome!!! Seems like you are on the right track as to what Rainbowtrout would like. She seemed to really like Scintillatings ring or the concept of it.

What about going wg instead of platinum? Then you can spend more on the setting?

Good luck! Keep us posted on what you decide!!

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 1/24/2006 10:57:01 PM
Author: flyfisher
Different option from antiqueengagementrings.com:

It''s going to be small to fit the stone, though.

Welcome to PSCOPE... I am definitely a member of the clunky club (hee hee) But I love mine...

But as for your idea. I think everyone is right about the budget. You are definitely going to have bend somewhere. I obsessed about the prongs for mien for the longest time. I wanted a two prong, but then I realized that a two prong would cover my yummy stone too much and steal from me a veiw of my orange. So I opted for the single prong. I do not even notice or think about it anymore. I am much happier with the single.. Just food for though.

I posted you quote cause I have to say that this one''s bottom scares me a bit.. If she is going to wear it forever, take care cause I would think that this one would tend to thin a bit. (Goodness I hope this is not someones ring)

2mm is good.. but I would be careful with the diamind thing. MY 2 bands are 2 mm but they are quite ... (thick) height wise (does that make any sense) So that is something to consider as well. I think that it is good that you talkd her out of the diamonds ALL the way around the band. I have heard some people love theirs and then others talked about how difficult they are to get fitted later on... i.e gaining a little wieght as you get older.. (YES.. we do gain weight.. my metabolism has put on its brakes and refused to budge.. regardless of my denial..lol)

Platinum is good... some people SWEAR by it.... Others here on Pscope think that it is unessacary. Something else to think about it.

So basically, I am no help at all.. sorry about that... Good luck.. can;t wait to hear what you find!

 

[anchor31]

Welcome!

Have you considered 18k WG Pd instead of plat? I think you''re on the right track and she''ll love what you''ll get for her. Do you have any favorites?

 

[njc]

This ring from Fay Cullen is kinda fun. They apparently only have it in white gold though ($650).

 

[fatafelice]

First of all, I want to say what an sweet man you are! I''m sure there are plenty of us (read: me) who wish our BF would do exactly what you are doing!!!

Second, I think that having Wink make the ring really looks like the best option for getting what you and she want at a good price. I think you will end up with a stunning ring!

GOOD LUCK!

 

[flyfisher]

WG is tempting, but doesn''t it have to be redipped every few years? I''m a sappy sentamentalist about certain things, and would rather the symbol of the permanence of our relationship not need any scheduled retreating. Or am I making much ado about nothing?

Having thought about it all day, I''m about ready to call Wink and see what he thinks. If it can''t be done quite within budget, so be it. Or we can try going back to the local jeweler here who is reputable, willing to customize his settings, and honest (have recs. + personal experience) but most of his rings come from distant shores where the quality is...merely decent. He seemed to have extensive catalogs, though, so perhaps that''s an option.

She''s going to send me a list of absolute must-have''s tonight. I''ll keep y''all updated.

Thanks for all the help so far.

 

[MINE!!]

Good question.. but you know.... Platinum does not stay so shiny white either. Others have had this thread about how long WG lasts without having to be redipped.. it ranged from a few years to quite a few years. Either way it is a quick and painless application (should you feel that you need it done)

Personally, I feel platinum is overrated. it is strong, but it does have it''s downfalls. Old and sntique rings were not made of platinum... but I have seem some that I think would give platinum a run for its money. But once again, it is personal preference.