oh I didn''t think this was THE ring for you any more than the HOF ring the other guy posted in the other thread is THE ring for me (if we could only BE so lucky haha) ... but it was the underside that really did it for me in terms of posting it for you. I agree with this halo - it''s gorgeous but dare not put on stockings with that ring!! LOL Anyway - the combo of square stone, halo, non-pave thin band, AND delicate undercarriage.... had to post it
Date: 2/19/2007 4:17:18 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
oh I didn''t think this was THE ring for you any more than the HOF ring the other guy posted in the other thread is THE ring for me (if we could only BE so lucky haha) ... but it was the underside that really did it for me in terms of posting it for you. I agree with this halo - it''s gorgeous but dare not put on stockings with that ring!! LOL Anyway - the combo of square stone, halo, non-pave thin band, AND delicate undercarriage.... had to post it
Actually, no......that *wasn't* exactly the point of my example.Date: 2/20/2007 2:01:23 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
I don't understand your response. Pretty sure it was your .75 pendants used to illustrate this exact example, no?Date: 2/20/2007 10:38:48 AM
Author: aljdewey
My response was surprise....as in taken aback, not so much at the content but the delivery. Perhaps my interpretation was somewhat tinged by the tone of your responses in a few other threads lately, so it's possible I misread the tone here.
Thank you for the explanation - I agree those two types do create a different look but even the center stone in your two the one that is haloed looks BIGGER! I agree the one above is more to extend the diamond size.Date: 2/20/2007 3:55:46 PM
Author: aljdewey
Actually, no......that *wasn''t* exactly the point of my example.Date: 2/20/2007 2:01:23 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
I don''t understand your response. Pretty sure it was your .75 pendants used to illustrate this exact example, no?Date: 2/20/2007 10:38:48 AM
Author: aljdewey
There is a difference between trying to get more presence on the hand and trying to deceive the eye to make it think the stone is larger than it is. Subsequently, there are different looks to halos....and not all are created the same.
Bezel-set halos (such as the one I posted) don''t really deceive the eye into thinking the main stone is bigger....because it actually outlines the center stone.
Prong-set halos (such as the one above) don''t outline the center stone, which helps it blend into the surround diamonds and deceive the eye into seeing the grouping of stones as one mass of sparkle.
Each look is different, and each achieves different things.
When I did my halo, it wasn''t to make the stone itself look bigger....it was to make the overall piece appear more commanding. That was the point of my example to Dianne....how the halo covers more real estate on the hand and how it makes the whole piece more bling-y.....not that it attempts to make the stone itself look bigger.
My response was surprise....as in taken aback, not so much at the content but the delivery. Perhaps my interpretation was somewhat tinged by the tone of your responses in a few other threads lately, so it''s possible I misread the tone here.
No sweat.Date: 2/20/2007 4:35:57 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
As for my delivery - it is true that I''ve been jumpy (to be kind to myself) a bit, but I tend to be pretty direct and forthcoming and get over things quickly so if there''s no reason (justified or not) for me to be snarky - it''s just me being... blunt I guess? I''m not good at getting my personality across online but I haven''t made it any easier for myself the last couple weeks either!!!
I tend to add a lot of LOL andDate: 2/20/2007 4:50:12 PM
Author: aljdewey
No sweat.I''m one of the ''cut-to-the-chase'', direct types too, so I know how challenging it can be to communicate in that style without a lot of the visual markers (i.e. body language). Especially hard to be tongue-in-cheek when people can''t see your cheek! LOL
I''m sure I just read it in the same vein as the tone of the last few weeks, so yeah - my bad.
when I''m being humorous even if it is supposed to be facetious and sometimes it bugs me because it seems so trite to add those and downright inappropriate at times (ie cloying smiles with dry humor), but when I''m feeling snarky there are no LOLs and no phony for *sure*!!! And yes, I could tell that you were a type best in person with subtle twinkles rather than more overt Do you use your hands and face a lot? I definitely do. I''m also generally not so kneejerky - I don''t know what''s been up my butt recently... ring anxiety I guess?? LOL
HAHAHA - do I use my hands and face alot? I''m Italian! I don''t know how to talk without my hands and face! baaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha.Date: 2/20/2007 5:47:59 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
I tend to add a lot of LOL and
Yes, well... my husband would also like me to get over this ring thing - I think *everyone* will be happier when the dang thing is done even if it does mean that I post way too many pictures... heheheDate: 2/20/2007 7:22:32 PM
Author: aljdewey
HAHAHA - do I use my hands and face alot? I''m Italian! I don''t know how to talk without my hands and face! baaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha.Date: 2/20/2007 5:47:59 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
I tend to add a lot of LOL and
Eh - we all have times when we''re knee-jerky. The good news is.....it passes. And thankfully, most of the folks here are like family - indulgent enough to partake in a little ''selective'' focusing to filter out the cranky fits and love each other anyway
300x240.png)
