Edwardian setting-all input welcome-thoughts & ideas?

[tlfiore]

After (embarrassingly) posting my tale of "diamond ring-woe" under another thread, I got thinking..."stock setting" perhaps? I do a lot of reading and lurking and I welcome all sorts of ideas and input. I really value the ideas and experience of people here on PS, so I thought I'd run this by you.

Over the, uh years now of looking at diamonds & rings, this setting continually pops up anytime I do my search. For inspiration and mindless entertainment, sometimes I troll for:
ANTIQUE RING+PLATINUM+LOW SETTING+SCROLL BASKET+DIAMOND SHOULDERS+TRI-WIRE SHANK+CUFFS, etc."






Now, I found several antique rings exactly like the one in the photos (one in the photo included) on the Israel Rose Website, yet another W 47th Street diamond & jewelry person in the NYC Diamond District (been reading about folks who are planning journies to GOG, DBL, IDJ, OWD, etc). I initially wanted a true antique/vintage ring but shied away due to many requiring restorative work.

Israel Rose states "their items are authentic antique/vintage jewelry." And I bought one overpriced antique band from them a while back, which is just okay. But I think this setting may be some type of replica "stock" setting...

I'm not in the market for another ring but I am thinking about settings for my 1.91 OEC.

Something about the low & elegant profile, the simple & timeless design, the NSEW prongs, swooping shoulders, the tri-wires...something draws me to this setting design. I low the tri-prongs, which coordinate beautifully with the tri-wire shank. The prongs and the lowness of the head give the ring (almost) a bezel look but without totally containing the diamond. The setting seems authentic to the era, elegant, timeless ...it's got je'ne sai quo, IMHO!

Do folks know anything about this setting? Thanks in advance for any help!!

 

[tlfiore]

Sorry about the size of the downloads. I am not good at re-sizing stuff. Apologies

 

[tlfiore]

As an aside, if I can have this ring custom-made (with modifications, if it is a proprietary design), I will do that if I must. Any help???

 

[Matthews1127]

After (embarrassingly) posting my tale of "diamond ring-woe" under another thread, I got thinking..."stock setting" perhaps? I do a lot of reading and lurking and I welcome all sorts of ideas and input. I really value the ideas and experience of people here on PS, so I thought I'd run this by you.

Over the, uh years now of looking at diamonds & rings, this setting continually pops up anytime I do my search. For inspiration and mindless entertainment, sometimes I troll for:
ANTIQUE RING+PLATINUM+LOW SETTING+SCROLL BASKET+DIAMOND SHOULDERS+TRI-WIRE SHANK+CUFFS, etc."






Now, I found several antique rings exactly like the one in the photos (one in the photo included) on the Israel Rose Website, yet another W 47th Street diamond & jewelry person in the NYC Diamond District (been reading about folks who are planning journies to GOG, DBL, IDJ, OWD, etc). I initially wanted a true antique/vintage ring but shied away due to many requiring restorative work.

Israel Rose states "their items are authentic antique/vintage jewelry." And I bought one overpriced antique band from them a while back, which is just okay. But I think this setting may be some type of replica "stock" setting...

I'm not in the market for another ring but I am thinking about settings for my 1.91 OEC.

Something about the low & elegant profile, the simple & timeless design, the NSEW prongs, swooping shoulders, the tri-wires...something draws me to this setting design. I low the tri-prongs, which coordinate beautifully with the tri-wire shank. The prongs and the lowness of the head give the ring (almost) a bezel look but without totally containing the diamond. The setting seems authentic to the era, elegant, timeless ...it's got je'ne sai quo, IMHO!

Do folks know anything about this setting? Thanks in advance for any help!!

This reminds me of VC, and his tri-wire designs. If you are that interested in this design, but want something new & sturdy, that’s not a stock item, David Klass could simply replicate this for you, for a reasonable price. I know nothing of this particular ring or its maker. However, you could have this custom made to your specifications, and put your own spin on it, for a relatively low cost.
I can see why you gravitate to it; it’s beautiful, and elegant.

 

[tlfiore]

This reminds me of VC, and his tri-wire designs. If you are that interested in this design, but want something new & sturdy, that’s not a stock item, David Klass could simply replicate this for you, for a reasonable price. I know nothing of this particular ring or its maker. However, you could have this custom made to your specifications, and put your own spin on it, for a relatively low cost.
I can see why you gravitate to it; it’s beautiful, and elegant.

@Matthews1127 you are a special lady! You have patiently followed my journey now for nearly two years. You have never passed judgment and you are always helpful and kind! I feel foolish about all my mishaps but...there are many worse things in life, for sure. Thank you!

 

[MollyMalone]

Israel Rose seems to be conscientious about letting potential customers know if the ring is an "inspired by" or "in the style of". E.g.,
https://www.newyorkestatejewelry.co...tinum-Engagement-Ring/Edwardian/34073/22/item

The listing for the ring you posted doesn't have that qualifier. Rather, it's described as an "estate" ring -- presumably because it's not 100+ years old (the 100-year mark is what defines a proper "antique).
https://www.newyorkestatejewelry.co...Engagement-Ring/Engagement-Rings/29141/3/item

So I'm thinking it's not a reproduction. And I agree with Matthews1127 that it's a lovely design which could be easily recreated, and done well, for not big bucket-loads of cash.

 

[tlfiore]

Israel Rose seems to be conscientious about letting potential customers know if the ring is an "inspired by" or "in the style of". E.g.,
https://www.newyorkestatejewelry.co...tinum-Engagement-Ring/Edwardian/34073/22/item

The listing for the ring you posted doesn't have that qualifier. Rather, it's described as an "estate" ring -- presumably because it's not 100+ years old (the 100-year mark is what defines a proper "antique).
https://www.newyorkestatejewelry.co...Engagement-Ring/Engagement-Rings/29141/3/item

So I'm thinking it's not a reproduction. And I agree with Matthews1127 that it's a lovely design which could be easily recreated, and done well, for not big bucket-loads of cash.

@MollyMalone thank you thank you for your input! I've spoken with David (?) at IR a few times and he is very very helpful, considerate and kind. Thank you for clarifying this! Yes, IR seems to be quite careful with their descriptives and all and they seem to know their stuff! I like the guys there a whole lot. I totally understand the estate, vs reproduction, vs antique, vs vintage thing now.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

THIS may be the ticket to my woes-lolol. And the simplicity, ergot the cost of the setting may somewhat ease the sting from all the other losses

 

[Matthews1127]

@Matthews1127 you are a special lady! You have patiently followed my journey now for nearly two years. You have never passed judgment and you are always helpful and kind! I feel foolish about all my mishaps but...there are many worse things in life, for sure. Thank you!

Wel, you are too kind!! We all have our journeys, in life...and jewelry journeys are my favorite!!
Sometimes, these things take time, patience & a little encouragement! I love the bespoke idea because you can use an inspiration piece, and add or subtract to/from it to make it your own, one of a kind piece. Once that mold is broken, and the ring is cast, there will never be another in the world like it!

 

[Matthews1127]

This looks familiar:

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ded-on-transitional-m-colored-diamond.243163/

 

[rockysalamander]

I may be proven wrong, but this does not look like an antique ring. This point in the ring just does not have the finesse of well-made rings...and you would not have cheaply made rings to accommodate a stone of this size. I don't see evidence of actual wear. In the second picture, that texture on the shank looks like casting residue to me. If this was an older ring, that would simply not be there. It just feels off to me.

I think this is a replicate of an antique that has also been replicated by others. It may not be "new", but I think it is cast and not hand-forged or die-cast. I'd personally simply take this as inspiration and have DK replicate this. You'll know it will fit your lovely diamond perfectly and the construction will be without worries.



Edited to add: I have the same HUGE picture problem.

 

[tlfiore]

@Matthews1127 ...this is too ironic & funny! I just asked @Eelh77 if she might comment on her search and her website finds. But the more I think about it, I may go the "custom route." Perhaps have a few more diamonds added to elongated shoulders, some melee in the wire shank cuffs!

Honestly, I want to pretty closely replicate a setting I love. I don't think I have the stomach right now (or in the near future) to agonize over a custom ring setting utilizing an "inspiration" ring. Tweak this, add that, raise it up here, milgrain there. I guess it can be fun but I'm sorta spent on the notion.

'm reading all the stuff under @Maisie 's thread about a custom design. And while exciting, the info is making my head hurt But I'm happy for people who find such joy in the design part. Frankly for me, the whole thing creates anxiety, nausea and insomnia!!

 

[tlfiore]

I may be proven wrong, but this does not look like an antique ring. This point in the ring just does not have the finesse of well-made rings...and you would not have cheaply made rings to accommodate a stone of this size. I don't see evidence of actual wear. In the second picture, that texture on the shank looks like casting residue to me. If this was an older ring, that would simply not be there. It just feels off to me.

I think this is a replicate of an antique that has also been replicated by others. It may not be "new", but I think it is cast and not hand-forged or die-cast. I'd personally simply take this as inspiration and have DK replicate this. You'll know it will fit your lovely diamond perfectly and the construction will be without worries.



Edited to add: I have the same HUGE picture problem.

@rockysalamander OMG...thank you so much for taking the time and effort to help me! Now, I do not know a lot about jewelry (obviously), which is why I rely on folks here. I ALWAYS follow and read your posts, which are extremely helpful and spot on.

You are brilliant and so detailed oriented. Thank you!

You know, the setting does not strike me as an old(er) setting primarily 'cause as you stated, there is no wear and there are "casting" and soldering marks.

@rockysalamander ...this is a very very dumb & foolish question; however, can you please explain the difference to me between "die cast" vs "cast?"

And yes, I DO want something well constructed/fabricated. I have no intention on parting with this 1.91 I, VS1 OEC, let alone LOSING IT. Cannot afford to

 

[tlfiore]

@rockysalamander as an aside, the HUGE photos are good references though, aren't they? I sorta like them!

 

[Eelh77]

@Matthews1127 ...this is too ironic & funny! I just asked @Eelh77 if she might comment on her search and her website finds. But the more I think about it, I may go the "custom route." Perhaps have a few more diamonds added to elongated shoulders, some melee in the wire shank cuffs!

Honestly, I want to pretty closely replicate a setting I love. I don't think I have the stomach right now (or in the near future) to agonize over a custom ring setting utilizing an "inspiration" ring. Tweak this, add that, raise it up here, milgrain there. I guess it can be fun but I'm sorta spent on the notion.

'm reading all the stuff under @Maisie 's thread about a custom design. And while exciting, the info is making my head hurt But I'm happy for people who find such joy in the design part. Frankly for me, the whole thing creates anxiety, nausea and insomnia!!

I was going to go the custom ring route as well or potentially use ring concierge. I also wanted to potentially have a few diamonds added down the shoulder as well. Haven’t decided yet as I’m still trying to find the perfect diamond. Great minds think alike though!! Great taste

 

[scarsmum]

I know that DK does great restorative work; so if you have found the setting antique and it would fit your diamond is that an option? I wouldn’t be concerned about restoration with some of the fine jewelers we know about on PS and it would be the best of both worlds.

 

[rockysalamander]

Thanks for the kind words.

Die cast (more correctly die struck) is when you take metal and smash the design into it under great pressure. Maybe think of this is stamping the design into the metal. These are incredibly strong settings as the pressure work-hardens the metal. Whitehouse Brothers, Jabel and Vintage Filigree by Hugo Kohl are companies that still use die stricking. So, you can get the exact setting that was made in year one of the company as the dies last ages and ages. The "stamps" for lack of a better term. If you great grandmother had a Whitehouse setting and you wanted the same ring, they could simply pull the die and replicate it exactly for you.

Casting, these days, means you go from CAD to a wax/plastic positive mold. The wax is reverse cast to create a mold. Then, casting grain of the correct alloy is added to the mold. The metal is hardened after it is cast through hammering and working the metal. These are generally not as hardened as either die struck or hand-forged.

There is another method called "lost wax casting" which is where the design is actually carved into a wax by hand. That wax positive is also reverse cast to create a negative. From there, this is the same as casting.

By the 20th century, people wanted less expensive jewelry and much of the industry starting moving away from die-struck to casting. Places like Providence Rhode Island that dominated the jewelry manufacturing pre-1975, were lost in history as casting took over. A lot of that history of dies is gone now as much of the metal was sold off for scrap .

 

[tlfiore]

@rockysalamander WoW...thank you for all the information and the videos! I never realized die struck was so durable and well done. And my "everything" Ben Moses 3/4 eternity band was die struck and entirely hand engraved...drilled holes 'n everything-lol!

Hey...you brought me down Memory Lane. I actually am very familiar with the entire Providence Rhode Island jewelry industry 'cause I was born and raised there. My dear mom and nearly ALL my friend's mothers worked in the jewelry industry, as did I!! I totally forgot about that portion of my life, so many years ago.

Not to hijack and certainly not to talk about costume jewelry here under "Rocky Talk" but at one point in the mid-70s, approximately 80% of all high-end costume jewelry was manufactured in Rhode Island. Names like Trifari, Monet, Jewel Co. of America, Kienhofer & Moog, Anson, Bulova, Gorham, Swank and Speidel!

It's fascinating to see how fabrication has changed (or not) throughout the years. I do have a very soft spot (but not a thick enough wallet) for Victor Canera's hand-forged designs. They are spectacular, IMHO!

Thank you for the great videos.

 

[Maisie]

I can certainly understand your hesitation in going custom. If can be difficult. I was a bit thrown when my thread went sideways but look at where I ended up. I’m going to get the most beautiful new setting! It is easy to get carried away and I had to rein myself in at times!

If you do decide to go custom you will get so much help from the lovely PS’ers over in Rocky Talky.

 

[tlfiore]

I can certainly understand your hesitation in going custom. If can be difficult. I was a bit thrown when my thread went sideways but look at where I ended up. I’m going to get the most beautiful new setting! It is easy to get carried away and I had to rein myself in at times!

If you do decide to go custom you will get so much help from the lovely PS’ers over in Rocky Talky.

@Maisie thank you for your input! Yes, I am thrilled you received so much wonderful help on your setting design. You seem to have the constitution & temperament for the custom way (whereas, I'm afraid I do not...not for so many tweaks and change ups, as with your setting-lolol).

The setting you are working on is lovely, it truly is. I love hexagonal bezel settings. The folks here are incredible, aren't they?

As an aside, are you still working with David Klass? Do you mind if I ask how things are going? Folks here have suggested him as a possible source for me but I"m just not sure. I'm still a bit shell-shocked from my first (and only) custom design-lololol!

 

[Maisie]

David Klass made this beautiful setting

(Sorry for the terrible image. I had to do a screen shot from a video)

 

[tlfiore]

David Klass made this beautiful setting

(Sorry for the terrible image. I had to do a screen shot from a video)

Oooooh, that is nice!

 

[Maisie]

@Maisie thank you for your input! Yes, I am thrilled you received so much wonderful help on your setting design. You seem to have the constitution & temperament for the custom way (whereas, I'm afraid I do not...not for so many tweaks and change ups, as with your setting-lolol).

The setting you are working on is lovely, it truly is. I love hexagonal bezel settings. The folks here are incredible, aren't they?

As an aside, are you still working with David Klass? Do you mind if I ask how things are going? Folks here have suggested him as a possible source for me.

I have done custom a couple of times before so I’m ok with the process.

I am still working with David. Things seem to be on hold though as Amy (who replies to emails and calls) is very sick. I’m just giving them time to work their way around to me.

 

[tlfiore]

I have done custom a couple of times before so I’m ok with the process.

I am still working with David. Things seem to be on hold though as Amy (who replies to emails and calls) is very sick. I’m just giving them time to work their way around to me.

Oh boy...hope Amy gets well soon. That's sad

 

[LetLoveRule]

Thanks for the kind words.

Die cast (more correctly die struck) is when you take metal and smash the design into it under great pressure. Maybe think of this is stamping the design into the metal. These are incredibly strong settings as the pressure work-hardens the metal. Whitehouse Brothers, Jabel and Vintage Filigree by Hugo Kohl are companies that still use die stricking. So, you can get the exact setting that was made in year one of the company as the dies last ages and ages. The "stamps" for lack of a better term. If you great grandmother had a Whitehouse setting and you wanted the same ring, they could simply pull the die and replicate it exactly for you.

Casting, these days, means you go from CAD to a wax/plastic positive mold. The wax is reverse cast to create a mold. Then, casting grain of the correct alloy is added to the mold. The metal is hardened after it is cast through hammering and working the metal. These are generally not as hardened as either die struck or hand-forged.

There is another method called "lost wax casting" which is where the design is actually carved into a wax by hand. That wax positive is also reverse cast to create a negative. From there, this is the same as casting.

By the 20th century, people wanted less expensive jewelry and much of the industry starting moving away from die-struck to casting. Places like Providence Rhode Island that dominated the jewelry manufacturing pre-1975, were lost in history as casting took over. A lot of that history of dies is gone now as much of the metal was sold off for scrap .

Wow these videos clarify so much, super interesting to see the process. Thank you for posting this!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

That's a lovely antique design, and like rockysalamander, I think it's a cast repro of an antique ring. The only thing is, it just doesn't have high quality finishing. I have rings similar to this saved because that general style is what I lean toward for my AVR. I don't see a problem making one similar to this.

I can't see this ring with your wedding band, either, but if you did try it, the head of this e-ring would need to be raised some, because as it is, your band would hit halfway up on the side of that head. With the stone set so low, the base of the head is large, so there would be a greater gap between this ring and whatever band you wear. So you just need to think about what kind of band you'd want to wear with it and plan accordingly.

 

[tlfiore]

That's a lovely antique design, and like rockysalamander, I think it's a cast repro of an antique ring. The only thing is, it just doesn't have high quality finishing. I have rings similar to this saved because that general style is what I lean toward for my AVR. I don't see a problem making one similar to this.

I can't see this ring with your wedding band, either, but if you did try it, the head of this e-ring would need to be raised some, because as it is, your band would hit halfway up on the side of that head. With the stone set so low, the base of the head is large, so there would be a greater gap between this ring and whatever band you wear. So you just need to think about what kind of band you'd want to wear with it and plan accordingly.

Thank you so much for taking the time out to reply to my post...and for giving things so much thought! Yes, I see what you are saying about the head's low profile and where the shank or band connects.

I imagine this is a relatively easy fix by raising the head and angling or sloping the shoulders a bit more, I suppose.

I do not mind a bit of a gap between any solitaire and my Eternity Band. I actually do not like when a beautiful solitaire stacks perfectly up with a band or other ring. That look is too matchy-match for me. But yes...I wouldn't want any band to rise halfway up the basket/head of the setting. That wouldn't be good.

BTW...the height of my eternity band, that is the rise from the top of my left ring finger to the top of the band is only 2.3 mm. And I'd have to remeasure the width again but I think the band is about 3.5 mm wide.

I value your input a lot. Do you mind sharing why you do not see this as a good match with my eternity band? I recognize this ring is very plain, not embellished, not engraved or etched. I guess I want something that's not too flashy or too much bling to wear with my eternity band (if/when I choose to wear them together).

Thanks in advance for your help. Also any design ideas you have about raising the head up and designing the shank/band to articulate a bit better (with anything) would be most welcome!!

 

[purplesilk]

@tlfiore : I read your diamond journey and I asked myself if you're a diamond band gal instead of a solitaire ring girl...I adore solitaires on other people, no matter if big or small, but I don't like them on my finger because a single stone always seems not proportionate; for a long period I thought it was a setting problem, I too adore edwardian/art deco mountings and I took the time to search and try on various interesting rings... then I realized that, no matter how beautifully detailed the setting is, the diamond band look is what suits my hand.
Best to you from Italy,
purplesilk

 

[rockysalamander]

I just looked at your band and its lovely. When I had my ring made, I actually mailed my wedding band along with the stones for setting. That allowed them to be 100% confident that they ering would not have problematic contact with my wedding band.

I think the challenge is that finding a real antique setting like this will be quite difficult. So, that leaves repros. I have no issue with repos, but I like them to be better executed.

I hear you on not wanting custom. What about something like this?
https://www.ritani.com/ring-configu...rStone=RD&metal=Platinum&overlaySetting=21857

 

[rockysalamander]

Shoulders match, gallery not quite as cupping of stone.
http://www.beverleyk.com/vintage/r3010-r3010.html

Not at all what you pinned, but I thought were pretty and might work with your asesthetic.
http://www.beverleyk.com/vintage/r9655-a-d-d-cz-r9655-a-d-d-cz-r9655-a-d-d-cz.html
http://www.beverleyk.com/vintage/r9664-a-d-d-cz-r9664-a-d-d-cz-r9664-a-d-d-cz.html
http://www.beverleyk.com/floral-engagement-rings/r10841-r10841.html

 

[tlfiore]

@tlfiore : I read your diamond journey and I asked myself if you're a diamond band gal instead of a solitaire ring girl...I adore solitaires on other people, no matter if big or small, but I don't like them on my finger because a single stone always seems not proportionate; for a long period I thought it was a setting problem, I too adore edwardian/art deco mountings and I took the time to search and try on various interesting rings... then I realized that, no matter how beautifully detailed the setting is, the diamond band look is what suits my hand.
Best to you from Italy,
purplesilk

@purplesilk Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments and for taking the time to post. I've wondered that about myself, too. From time-to-time, I have worn or stacked one other ring with my eternity band. I wore a beautiful 5-stone Mine Cut band with my eternity band for ages. Then I fell in love with antique cushion and old European cut diamonds. But you may be on to something there-thank you!