gallery of rings

[pannini]

when creating an ering with a dainty band (around 1.6 mm), is the gallery more likely to protrude because the shank is so narrow? does this mean that when a shank is wider (like say, 2.0 - 2.2 mm), the gallery kind of "blends in" with the shank because the gallery size never really changes?

i am mostly referring to leon mege''s work, because i requested a shank of 2.0 and a reduced gallery, but perhaps reducing it is not necessary when the shank will be wider than his usual super thin shanks.

opinions? expertise?

 

[neatfreak]

2mm is still very thin. But yes when you get into the truly wider bands like 3mm it is much easier to get a flush fit.

 

[pannini]

Date: 6/10/2009 2:35:13 PM
Author: neatfreak
2mm is still very thin. But yes when you get into the truly wider bands like 3mm it is much easier to get a flush fit.

so as a response to that answer, does that mean a gallery size depends on the diamond size? and then, that gallery remains constant while the shank width may increase or decrease depending on design?

this is like a math quiz, lol.

 

[lowphat]

It''s funny b/c I think you and I are in the same boat right now. We seem to have the same questions. From what I''ve seen, LM''s rings aren''t made to sit flush. The way he designs his rings, there will always be a "seating ring", which is the round donut that connects the basket to the shank. I read in another post where someone asked him if there''s a way to not have that and he said no.

From what I''ve seen, it appears that his Tulip has the smallest seating ring. His other designs, the ring depends on the shape of the basket and the size of the diamond, but always seem larger than the ones on his Tulip rings.

 

[pannini]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:22:03 PM
Author: lowphat
It''s funny b/c I think you and I are in the same boat right now. We seem to have the same questions. From what I''ve seen, LM''s rings aren''t made to sit flush. The way he designs his rings, there will always be a ''seating ring'', which is the round donut that connects the basket to the shank. I read in another post where someone asked him if there''s a way to not have that and he said no.


From what I''ve seen, it appears that his Tulip has the smallest seating ring. His other designs, the ring depends on the shape of the basket and the size of the diamond, but always seem larger than the ones on his Tulip rings.

hi lowphat, yes we seem to both be interested in LM''s rings and have same concerns! well based on my very lengthy research, I know he doesn''t make rings flush unless it''s Capuchonne, which you can type in a search here and find, or type in a search at his website catalog and you''ll find it too. the issue for capuchonne is that he makes the basket higher.

I personally don''t mind a non-flush ring, I am more concerned about the gap size between the ring and the wedding band. I think it looks kinda neat with a subtle gap, which makes the two rings more distinct.

As for the donut (Leon calls it a gallery) that he uses, it is possible to request no gallery and then he will make it like a capuchonne, or make the gallery so small that a ring will sit close. Delster did this: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/delster-retsleds-leon.88955/

My personal concern was if it was even necessary to ask him for a reduced gallery if all I have to say is ask for a 2 mm shank and hope that the gallery will be smaller and he won''t have to shrink it to be too small. My own personal aesthetic preference is that the gallery not looked forced to be small, because then it looks disproportionate to the overall flow of the ring. I''d rather have Leon make the gallery the size that is appropriate, and hope it will be minimal with a wider shank (2 mm).

Sorry for the novel here!

 

[mrssalvo]

pannini- personally, I would just trust Leon to make the donut(gallery) in the appropriate size based on your stone size and the width you choose.