custom setting experience

[Finally!]

First off, I am grateful to the PS community for all the informative - and civilized - discussion! It''s been a pleasure to read and learn from.

I''m fortunate to have a BF who wants me to have exactly the E-ring I want, within his budget. He said once I pick it out, he''ll get it for me.

Well - after looking for six months, learning what catches my eye, what I think looks good on my finger, etc., I still do not have a setting! I am clearly too picky.

Early on, I realized I like a sparkly RB, and I like the look of cathedral mountings. I like a four prong head. I like a setting to be around 6mm wide at the center stone, and taper toward the sides of the finger. I find knife-edged rings uncomfortable. That narrowed the field somewhat, but the choices were still overwhelming.

I learned I am attracted to tapered baguettes as accents since they give a little shine but don''t steal the focus from the "star attraction." However, I HATE the clumsy architecture I have seen underneath most baguette rings. That is to say, the side view stinks on nearly all of them. Most have baguettes too narrow for the 1.25 - 1.5 carat stone I hope to get. Proportion between baguettes and center stone is very important, as is the angle of the baguettes relative to it. Also, most baguettes are bar-set, which is fine, but many designs I''ve seen carry the bars out past the edge of the ring, which bothers me because...

I want to use my grandmother''s wedding band, which is 18k white gold without rhodium, and which she wore for so long against a 10k ring that it''s perfectly flat on one side. It''s about 1.5mm thick - I like that it''s "barely there". I also like the natural color of the metal. I was sad when I had it squeezed down to my size and it shined up.

It being a flat band, not curved, I narrowed my search to looking for a tapered baguette setting that would let it snug up flush. This is apparently very rare - most E-ring settings out there right won''t allow this. I can''t imagine why designers can''t consider function whilst dreaming up their works of art. Martin Flyer seems to use this as a selling point - but I can''t pay $4,000 or more for one of his settings! I want a big, beautiful sparkly thing IN the setting, so I''ve capped the setting cost at about half that.

I have also learned that I dislike pave and micropave, and, in general, bling. But I really like filigree! So I looked at a lot of antique settings, but I dislike that most cover the sides of the sparkly thing so you can''t enjoy its beauty from the side. And, of course, the heads stick out so that my WB won''t lay flush.

And if that weren''t enough, this past week I decided I like the ''tiny bit of two-tone'' look that Simon G and others are showing now.

I know for a fact my dream ring does not exist...

SO - I''m going custom!

* 18k white gold, no rhodium
* base ring of about 3.5 - 4mm, all the way around
* built on top of that, two "wings" that will swoop up toward the stone, cathedral-style, but will widen to about 6mm at the stone (allowing WB to snug up underneath!)
* Four 2.5mm x 4 x 1.25 tapered baguettes, VS1, G color - built onto the tops of the wings, bar-set but flush with the edges of the wings
* Yellow gold "scrolls" between the base ring and the wings, to support the wings and add visual interest from the sides, same width as the base ring
* Filigree "leaves and vines" pattern on 75% of surface of wings and base ring (bottom stays plain)
* "Tulip" four-prong pin head
* Hopefully a 1.25 - 1.5 carat, "H or better" color, AGS0 with medium-strong blue fluorescence!

I''ve seen the baguettes, and, though tiny, they were clear and white, appeared to have good symmetry, and greatly resembled each other.

My drawings have been sent out to the carver. I''m to see a wax in about a week, my custom jeweler says. I''ll get pics once it''s in, and post them.

Here''s my inspiration pic for the filigree and "gold scroll" (Simon G).

 

[LGK]

Looks like a fun project! Just one word of caution: if you are expecting modern unrhodiumed 18K white gold to match antique 18K white gold, it's unlikely... older white gold was made with a lot more nickel in it, and is much brighter white. Modern is more like a cream color, especially 18K. The change over from high-nickel white gold seemed to happen somewhere around the '70s more or less, from what I've gathered looking at loads of vintage rings.

You might see about getting the gold alloyed with palladium, which makes it a lot whiter, but few jewelers do that unfortunately... I think the melting points of the two metals are pretty different so things can go rather wrong if the jeweler isn't experienced with that process.l Or rhodium plating both rings. Otherwise they're likely to be two different colors.

Sounds like you have a great idea about what suits you- hope the custom project goes swimmingly!

 

[Finally!]

I would prefer that the gold turn slightly yellow with time, actually. The color that my grandmother''s ring had before I had it resized was a beautiful "butter" color. I have seen one ring out there in my search (a tension set) that was this color, and I was told it was 18k white without rhodium. It was a perfect cross between white and yellow gold, in my opinion. Just lovely.

Has anyone seen the setting that I''m talking about? I never learned the designer''s name since I wasn''t interested in the ring itself.

 

[Finally!]

Just for clarity's sake, my avatar is of a Viachi setting that is similar to the idea I have in my head for my ering setting. The big difference is that the Viachi has a built-in head, and the setting does not allow the wedding band to sit flush against the ering, "Martin Flyer"-style.

An easy description of what I want for the ering setting is a 'ring within a ring'. The interior ring will be exactly the same proportions, all the way around - it should mimic my grandmother's band in its thickness, but can be wider. I was thinking about 4mm max. The Outer Ring will be a cathedral that widens as it approaches the stone, to 6mm - acting as a sort of 'canopy' over the inner ring, from the top view. At the base of the ering the two rings would merge into just one. This will allow my grandmother's band to snug up under the canopy and become almost invisible, letting the ering be the star attraction.

My custom jeweler sent my design specs to the wax carver about 10 days ago. Her wax came back on Friday, so I went for a look. She completely did not understand the 'inner' and 'outer' ring concept. There was no base ring underlying the spread at the top - it was all one. The band would sit at an angle against this setting, which I would find uncomfortable.

The baguettes were set in the wax, however, and they looked fantastic.

Another thing I did not like was that the would-be outer ring 'canopy' did not taper in the manner I presented in my drawings. I will grant that I'm not the greatest artist, but I thought I consistently represented that the 'flare' of the canopy should mimic the flare of the tapered baguettes as they came together... instead the flare was gradual, from the very bottom of the ring. To me this "fought" the symmetry presented by the baguettes, and was not beautiful. When I explained what I wanted, the jeweler and his wife said "Oh, that would kill the look of it." I felt like saying that I didn't really care, I'm the one who has to look at it the rest of my life and if I want it to flare out more suddenly, from a point just below midway on the shank, then that's all that matters... I'm getting a short fuse in my old age.

I also said the shank on the wax seemed a bit on the thin side. It's currently .5mm at the base. I think my grandmother's band is 1mm.

Finally, I commented that I'd asked for a filigree design that was more floral in nature, and I got chevrons instead. I asked if perhaps the carver could draw a few options on paper and let me choose from them.

So the wax has been sent back to the carver with my criticisms.

Should I expect to pay more for the setting due to this rejection?

 

[Finally!]

I realized at some point after my meeting with the caster that he needed something more specific to show the wax carver in order to get it right, so I created for him the drawing below. I haven''t seen the wax yet - I should see it either tomorrow or early next week, so I''m very excited!

 

[oneam]

Wow! So detailed. I am impressed.

I also love the look of baguette side stones and I was SO picky when I was looking at rings that I was driving myself crazy. I had the same issue w/ the profile/underside of most of these rings just looking wrong, and I also looked at many Tacoris (couldn''t find one that would allow a flush fit band) and Martin Flyers. My problem, also, was that I also loved pave and halos and rounds and emerald cuts and ovals and asschers and everything else under the sun.

Anyway, I can''t wait to see the finished product, the drawings are lovely!

 

[Finally!]

Thank you for the compliment. My caster and I were thinking that if this comes out well, we might try marketing it. He said he can easily make a more permanent cast for it, and even make it possible to change out baguettes for trilliants, rounds, etc. Does anyone think that idea is worth pursuing?

Update: I just called to check on the wax and his son said someone broke into my caster''s outdoor workhouse last night!