Help! Ideas for setting first purchase..

[arjunajane]

Hello,
as some of you may know, I have been looking to make my first coloured stone purchase, and thankyou everyone who has given advice so far

I had wanted to keep this project to myself and then a surprise when its done, but I'm afraid I've hit a wall and need my PS'ers advice too badly!

Like many others, I have completely fallen for Richard Homers' snowflake topaz, the sky blue, and am hoping to have one put into a RHR (It will be 9 or 10mm).

The only thing is, due to the different shape of the gem, I am having trouble deciding on a way to set it that will be both safe and still look lovely.
Richard suggested V prongs, which I know would be the most sensible, but I haven't seen any that I'm a fan of so far..

I am pretty sure I want to put it into a 3 stone setting, most likely with baguettes a la' LM style (haven't chosen a vendor yet), but am worried claw prongs will leave the stone too exposed.

I really want to make this ring but can't decide what direction to go in - I would love any suggestions, both for settings and types of prongs!

Thanks in advance

 

[arjunajane]

This is the style of setting I'm digging, but the baguettes would be slightly thinner/smaller..

Oh, and if there are any photoshop whizzes reading this, I will be your best friend if you could please put the topaz into the ring??

 

[chrono]

I normally prefer regular "claw" prongs but with so many pointy corners, I''d rather protect my precious Richard Homer snowflake gemstone and stick with v-prongs too.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/17/2008 10:49:32 PM
Author: Chrono
I normally prefer regular ''claw'' prongs but with so many pointy corners, I''d rather protect my precious Richard Homer snowflake gemstone and stick with v-prongs too.

Thanks for the reply..
Chrono, do you know of any nice pics of V prongs? Do you think one claw over each corner would be ok?

The other thing I was thinking is to "rotate" it, so that its not so much star set, more like how the orientation is in this pic - does that make sense?

 

[Cleo]

Yummy yummy.. I am in love with those snowflakes too!

I''ve Photoshopped for you, but sizing the topaz up did block out most of the lovely sidestones.

How about a bezel setting, like Lauren''s asscher?

x x x

 

[akmiss]

It is such a lovely cut! Ditto on the bezel setting

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/17/2008 11:27:09 PM
Author: Cleo
Yummy yummy.. I am in love with those snowflakes too!

I''ve Photoshopped for you, but sizing the topaz up did block out most of the lovely sidestones.

How about a bezel setting, like Lauren''s asscher?

x x x

Oh thankyou Cleo! You''re a champion!
Is there any chance you could do the second one, that is turned around, just to decide what orientation would be better?

I did think of a bezel, but wanted more "bling" as well ya know - any suggestions..?

 

[Cleo]

This was harder.. scuse the slight botch-job.

x x x

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 8/17/2008 11:41:47 PM
Author: akmiss
It is such a lovely cut! Ditto on the bezel setting

Won''t topaz be too soft for a bezel? If you could though, I would totally go that route - it would protect it much better.

 

[Cleo]

You''re very welcome!

How about a bezel setting, with a halo with tiny diamonds around... mmmm. That''d be blingy!

x x x

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/17/2008 11:46:17 PM
Author: Cleo
This was harder.. scuse the slight botch-job.

x x x

You're the best!

I think that looks better, what about you?
Perhaps this orientation with a bezel?

I would go a halo for the extra bling, but its already such a large stone I think that'd be too much (for me)

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/17/2008 11:47:49 PM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 8/17/2008 11:41:47 PM
Author: akmiss
It is such a lovely cut! Ditto on the bezel setting

Won''t topaz be too soft for a bezel? If you could though, I would totally go that route - it would protect it much better.

MP, I am still (very much) learning about coloured stones.
Do you mean it would break when they are trying to set it?

I thought topaz was kinda hard (, am I wrong?

 

[FrekeChild]

It is. But it has perfect cleavage. So if it gets hit just right...giant crack and a broken gemstone.

 

[misspinky]

First off, I''m soooooooo jealous. I want a Christmas tree full of RH snowflakes....

Second, I agree with the bezel idea--but make sure that you go with someone that has experience working with that type of stone in that type of setting. I know that Wink does a lot of work with RH''s stones, so you might be able to get some setting ideas from him.

Hope that helps--can''t wait to see the finished project!

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/17/2008 11:48:47 PM
Author: arjunajane
You''re the best!

I think that looks better, what about you?
Perhaps this orientation with a bezel?

I would go a halo for the extra bling, but its already such a large stone I think that''d be too much (for me)

Glad to help!

Yes, I prefer it in the 2nd orientation too.

If you *can* bezel set it, I would... how about a diamond-set shank then for extra sparkly bling!

I am soooo going to have one of those as a pendant one day! I love them

x x x

 

[arjunajane]

Thanks everyone for the input, now I''m more confused than ever

maybe I need to give this some more thought..

 

[arjunajane]

Ok, so, new idea. I *love* the snowflake cut, but no point if I can't put into something I really love, right?
Its still on my shortlist, but I need to expand my options I think..

I had another thread about stones suitable for a pendant, but can someone pls advise which ones to stick to for a ring?
I would like to put in for a quote from Jeff White...

As a guide, I am liking the deep pinks such as Monkeypies' asscher spinel, or sky / bright blues. I also love the warm pinky/orange tone of Oregon sunstone, but not sure if thats hard enough..?
I love merelani mint garnet but is probably out of my price range - is there anything that comes in a similiar light green?

Thankyou!

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

Date: 8/18/2008 2:19:20 AM
Author: arjunajane
Ok, so, new idea. I *love* the snowflake cut, but no point if I can''t put into something I really love, right?

Its still on my shortlist, but I need to expand my options I think..


I had another thread about stones suitable for a pendant, but can someone pls advise which ones to stick to for a ring?

I would like to put in for a quote from Jeff White...


As a guide, I am liking the deep pinks such as Monkeypies'' asscher spinel, or sky / bright blues. I also love the warm pinky/orange tone of Oregon sunstone, but not sure if thats hard enough..?

I love merelani mint garnet but is probably out of my price range - is there anything that comes in a similiar light green?


Thankyou!

Hey Arjuna! Congrats on the lovely purchase!!! It''s stunning!

So are you just going to put that one on hold and look for another stone for a ring? (best of both worlds! new stone!

)

I''ll leave real help to the colored stone experts here...I''m a total newbie too! But wanted to say congrats!

 

[Cleo]

How about if it was set in a bezel and then put into a bangle?

I think that would look totally yummy, and might be safer (fewer knocks?) than in a ring?

Just a thought...

x x x

 

[ma re]

Setting a hexagon shaped stone in simple prongs is asking for trouble. However, there is something that comes to mind which would allow you to have that, without too much risk and loss of brilliance. Imagine a men''s flat signet ring (square, hexagon...doesen''t matter). Now imagine pressing the middle part of it down, having central part of the metal "sink", at say 45 degrees. So you have a flat (horizontal) edge and a hexagonal "trench" in the middle of it. There you can accomodate your hexagon with prongs safely, cause fragile parts won''t be exposed, plus the polished and angled "sides of the trench" will reflect light into it. Top of the crown can go as high as a flat edge or even slightly lower than that. Hope you understand what I''m trying to say.

As far as something similar to mint garnet, light bluish green isn''t uncommon among alexandrites. On the more affordable side green beryl, zircon, prasiolite, green kunzite and with a bit of luck, peridot of such color could be found. Of those, only zircon could exhibit brilliance similar to that of garnet.

Good luck!

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 3:42:46 AM
Author: Brown.Eyed.Girl

Date: 8/18/2008 2:19:20 AM
Author: arjunajane
Ok, so, new idea. I *love* the snowflake cut, but no point if I can''t put into something I really love, right?

Its still on my shortlist, but I need to expand my options I think..


I had another thread about stones suitable for a pendant, but can someone pls advise which ones to stick to for a ring?

I would like to put in for a quote from Jeff White...


As a guide, I am liking the deep pinks such as Monkeypies'' asscher spinel, or sky / bright blues. I also love the warm pinky/orange tone of Oregon sunstone, but not sure if thats hard enough..?

I love merelani mint garnet but is probably out of my price range - is there anything that comes in a similiar light green?


Thankyou!

Hey Arjuna! Congrats on the lovely purchase!!! It''s stunning!

So are you just going to put that one on hold and look for another stone for a ring? (best of both worlds! new stone!

)

I''ll leave real help to the colored stone experts here...I''m a total newbie too! But wanted to say congrats!

Hey BEG - I haven''t purchased it yet, lol, sorry if I was misleading

I am seriously considering ordering one cut, but I''m now wavering as not sure how to set it..considering going with a cushion shape etc..
But thanks anyway!

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 4:05:05 AM
Author: ma re


Setting a hexagon shaped stone in simple prongs is asking for trouble. However, there is something that comes to mind which would allow you to have that, without too much risk and loss of brilliance. Imagine a men's flat signet ring (square, hexagon...doesen't matter). Now imagine pressing the middle part of it down, having central part of the metal 'sink', at say 45 degrees. So you have a flat (horizontal) edge and a hexagonal 'trench' in the middle of it. There you can accomodate your hexagon with prongs safely, cause fragile parts won't be exposed, plus the polished and angled 'sides of the trench' will reflect light into it. Top of the crown can go as high as a flat edge or even slightly lower than that. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

As far as something similar to mint garnet, light bluish green isn't uncommon among alexandrites. On the more affordable side green beryl, zircon, prasiolite, green kunzite and with a bit of luck, peridot of such color could be found. Of those, only zircon could exhibit brilliance similar to that of garnet.

Good luck!

Hi ma re, thanks for the input. Your idea sounds interesting, but I'm afraid I'm having trouble imaging what you mean. Any chance of a pic?

As far as the stones you have mentioned, would any/all of these be hard enough for a ring? I thought topaz waz quite hard at 8, but it seems I still know so little!

If I am looking for something that is brilliant (sparkly) and hard, is garnet the best way? How about tourmaline?


Cleo, a bangle would be lovely - I have to admit I originally was going to make a pendant, but I'm being selfish in that I want a ring I can admire all the time - lol!

I'm not sure, maybe this just isn't the right stone for this project, although I do think it would look fab!

 

[loriken214]

This is a fascinating project and I can''t wait to see what you decide upon!

Lori

 

[Cleo]

Date: 8/18/2008 7:05:44 AM
Author: arjunajane

Cleo, a bangle would be lovely - I have to admit I originally was going to make a pendant, but I''m being selfish in that I want a ring I can admire all the time - lol!

I''m not sure, maybe this just isn''t the right stone for this project, although I do think it would look fab!

With a stone that size, you could afford to wear it on a really long chain if you set it as a pendant - which gives way more scope for admiring it all day...



x x x

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 8/18/2008 4:05:05 AM
Author: ma re

Setting a hexagon shaped stone in simple prongs is asking for trouble. However, there is something that comes to mind which would allow you to have that, without too much risk and loss of brilliance. Imagine a men''s flat signet ring (square, hexagon...doesen''t matter). Now imagine pressing the middle part of it down, having central part of the metal ''sink'', at say 45 degrees. So you have a flat (horizontal) edge and a hexagonal ''trench'' in the middle of it. There you can accomodate your hexagon with prongs safely, cause fragile parts won''t be exposed, plus the polished and angled ''sides of the trench'' will reflect light into it. Top of the crown can go as high as a flat edge or even slightly lower than that. Hope you understand what I''m trying to say.

As far as something similar to mint garnet, light bluish green isn''t uncommon among alexandrites. On the more affordable side green beryl, zircon, prasiolite, green kunzite and with a bit of luck, peridot of such color could be found. Of those, only zircon could exhibit brilliance similar to that of garnet.

Good luck!

Please don''t think of using Kunzite - it has two planes of perfect cleavage and is a hard stone to cut, let alone set. I''ve also had problems with peridot breaking. Zircon you will also need to protect the edges, it chips very easily.

 

[ma re]

Date: 8/18/2008 7:05:44 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/18/2008 4:05:05 AM
Author: ma re




Setting a hexagon shaped stone in simple prongs is asking for trouble. However, there is something that comes to mind which would allow you to have that, without too much risk and loss of brilliance. Imagine a men's flat signet ring (square, hexagon...doesen't matter). Now imagine pressing the middle part of it down, having central part of the metal 'sink', at say 45 degrees. So you have a flat (horizontal) edge and a hexagonal 'trench' in the middle of it. There you can accomodate your hexagon with prongs safely, cause fragile parts won't be exposed, plus the polished and angled 'sides of the trench' will reflect light into it. Top of the crown can go as high as a flat edge or even slightly lower than that. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

As far as something similar to mint garnet, light bluish green isn't uncommon among alexandrites. On the more affordable side green beryl, zircon, prasiolite, green kunzite and with a bit of luck, peridot of such color could be found. Of those, only zircon could exhibit brilliance similar to that of garnet.

Good luck!

Hi ma re, thanks for the input. Your idea sounds interesting, but I'm afraid I'm having trouble imaging what you mean. Any chance of a pic?

As far as the stones you have mentioned, would any/all of these be hard enough for a ring? I thought topaz waz quite hard at 8, but it seems I still know so little!

If I am looking for something that is brilliant (sparkly) and hard, is garnet the best way? How about tourmaline?


Cleo, a bangle would be lovely - I have to admit I originally was going to make a pendant, but I'm being selfish in that I want a ring I can admire all the time - lol!

I'm not sure, maybe this just isn't the right stone for this project, although I do think it would look fab!

THIS is something similar to what I have in mind. Now here are the diferences.

In the photo, there's just a hole drilled to accomodate the setting. Now imagine that hole having a wall inside, going along the entire perimeter of the circle. Now imagine that wall not being absolutely straight (vertical), but angled at 45, creating a descent into the hole (like a valley between mountains). Hope now it sounds more clear. Reflections off of that metal wall would make up for brilliance lost by getting the stone into a hole, so to speak, and the stone would be protected. Shape of the hole can be hexagonal or circular, your call.

As for stones mentioned being hard enough, zircon, green kunzite and peridot are best set in something other than rings, eventhough they're quite hard. The thing is, they're not tough, and that's what stones for rings should be. See, hardness is just resistance to scratches, while toughness is resistance to breakage, chipping and similar damage. For instance, rubber has a great toughness, but not a great hardness - reason being, you can scratch it easily with just about anything, but it won't break if you drop it on the floor - while glass is the opposite. Hope this concept is a bit more clear to you now. Other stones I mentioned should be fine in rings, but also remember that any gem with a lot of inclusions is best set in something other than a ring. Most inclusions make a stone weaker (less tough) and more easy to chip or break if hit. Some say even stones that lack toughness can be used in rings if they're not faceted but cut as cabochons (domed), although I haven't tried that theory myself.

P. S. I saw Pandora II wrote a few things about the three stones while I was writing my novel of a post, in case you wonder why I repeated much of it

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 7:47:39 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 8/18/2008 4:05:05 AM
Author: ma re


Setting a hexagon shaped stone in simple prongs is asking for trouble. However, there is something that comes to mind which would allow you to have that, without too much risk and loss of brilliance. Imagine a men''s flat signet ring (square, hexagon...doesen''t matter). Now imagine pressing the middle part of it down, having central part of the metal ''sink'', at say 45 degrees. So you have a flat (horizontal) edge and a hexagonal ''trench'' in the middle of it. There you can accomodate your hexagon with prongs safely, cause fragile parts won''t be exposed, plus the polished and angled ''sides of the trench'' will reflect light into it. Top of the crown can go as high as a flat edge or even slightly lower than that. Hope you understand what I''m trying to say.

As far as something similar to mint garnet, light bluish green isn''t uncommon among alexandrites. On the more affordable side green beryl, zircon, prasiolite, green kunzite and with a bit of luck, peridot of such color could be found. Of those, only zircon could exhibit brilliance similar to that of garnet.

Good luck!

Please don''t think of using Kunzite - it has two planes of perfect cleavage and is a hard stone to cut, let alone set. I''ve also had problems with peridot breaking. Zircon you will also need to protect the edges, it chips very easily.

Pandora - please help!
Are you able to tell me what stones can I safely use for a RHR - not everyday wear, but I want to be able to set it without compromising design too much, kwim?
I thought the topaz was a good choice at hardness 8, but didn''t realize about the cleavage.

I really like mint and malaia garnet, but they are out of what I''d like to spend.
I like the rhodolite garnets in J. Whites gallery..I like the dark pink and lavender spinel, also on JW site.
I also like his blue tourmaline, and aquamarine.

I have tried looking at the MOHS scale etc, but feel like I''m not going anywhere, lol!

Out of these options, in a cushion shape, which would be safe/safest choices..? Will any of them be ok to claw set, or will I need to halo/bezel set them?
I understand sapphires and rubies are probably the best choice for rings, but they are not in my budget, and to be honest I prefer other colours more..

The snowflake cut was going to be ~$450, so lets say this is the budget.
However, if I could get a malaia garnet in 7mm or more and had to spend a bit more, I''d go that way for sure...

I''m sorry, I know you helped alot in my last thread, I probably seem all over the place!

Thanks in advance sweet!

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 8:08:31 AM
Author: ma re

THIS is something similar to what I have in mind. Now here are the diferences.

In the photo, there''s just a hole drilled to accomodate the setting. Now imagine that hole having a wall inside, going along the entire perimeter of the circle. Now imagine that wall not being absolutely straight (vertical), but angled at 45, creating a descent into the hole (like a valley between mountains). Hope now it sounds more clear. Reflections off of that metal wall would make up for brilliance lost by getting the stone into a hole, so to speak, and the stone would be protected. Shape of the hole can be hexagonal or circular, your call.

As for stones mentioned being hard enough, zircon, green kunzite and peridot are best set in something other than rings, eventhough they''re quite hard. The thing is, they''re not tough, and that''s what stones for rings should be. See, hardness is just resistance to scratches, while toughness is resistance to breakage, chipping and similar damage. For instance, rubber has a great toughness, but not a great hardness - reason being, you can scratch it easily with just about anything, but it won''t break if you drop it on the floor - while glass is the opposite. Hope this concept is a bit more clear to you now. Other stones I mentioned should be fine in rings, but also remember that any gem with a lot of inclusions is best set in something other than a ring. Most inclusions make a stone weaker (less tough) and more easy to chip or break if hit. Some say even stones that lack toughness can be used in rings if they''re not faceted but cut as cabochons (domed), although I haven''t tried that theory myself.

P. S. I saw Pandora II wrote a few things about the three stones while I was writing my novel of a post, in case you wonder why I repeated much of it

Hi again ma re, thanks for the further education - just fyi I can''t get the link to work? But I think I see what you are saying..

I appreciate your explanation - who ever knew coloured stones are so involved - I swear, I''m *abit* more knowledgeable about diamonds, lol!

So, I know this may be a silly question, but what would be the minimum clarity grade I should be looking for for a ring? Ie. only VVS or better?, will a lesser grade effect the durability too much?

 

[ma re]

Date: 8/18/2008 8:21:38 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/18/2008 8:08:31 AM
Author: ma re



THIS is something similar to what I have in mind. Now here are the diferences.

In the photo, there's just a hole drilled to accomodate the setting. Now imagine that hole having a wall inside, going along the entire perimeter of the circle. Now imagine that wall not being absolutely straight (vertical), but angled at 45, creating a descent into the hole (like a valley between mountains). Hope now it sounds more clear. Reflections off of that metal wall would make up for brilliance lost by getting the stone into a hole, so to speak, and the stone would be protected. Shape of the hole can be hexagonal or circular, your call.

As for stones mentioned being hard enough, zircon, green kunzite and peridot are best set in something other than rings, eventhough they're quite hard. The thing is, they're not tough, and that's what stones for rings should be. See, hardness is just resistance to scratches, while toughness is resistance to breakage, chipping and similar damage. For instance, rubber has a great toughness, but not a great hardness - reason being, you can scratch it easily with just about anything, but it won't break if you drop it on the floor - while glass is the opposite. Hope this concept is a bit more clear to you now. Other stones I mentioned should be fine in rings, but also remember that any gem with a lot of inclusions is best set in something other than a ring. Most inclusions make a stone weaker (less tough) and more easy to chip or break if hit. Some say even stones that lack toughness can be used in rings if they're not faceted but cut as cabochons (domed), although I haven't tried that theory myself.

P. S. I saw Pandora II wrote a few things about the three stones while I was writing my novel of a post, in case you wonder why I repeated much of it

Hi again ma re, thanks for the further education - just fyi I can't get the link to work? But I think I see what you are saying..

I appreciate your explanation - who ever knew coloured stones are so involved - I swear, I'm *abit* more knowledgeable about diamonds, lol!

So, I know this may be a silly question, but what would be the minimum clarity grade I should be looking for for a ring? Ie. only VVS or better?, will a lesser grade effect the durability too much?

Here's the full link to the picture (maybe you can open it now):
http://www.hisnhersfinestjewellery.com/images/originals/37-MR%20a.jpg

If you're asking about clarity grades of colored stones - there aren't any, cause those are not diamonds. And with diamonds, I can't say anything about particular grades (although VVS and even SI should be completely fine), but stick to something like "if the stone (be it diamond or anything else) has so much inclusions that it looks fuzzy, muddy or has an obviously affected clarity (visually) it's best not to set it in a ring unless bezel set" - just to be safe.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 8:36:07 AM
Author: ma re



Here's the full link to the picture (maybe you can open it now):
http://www.hisnhersfinestjewellery.com/images/originals/37-MR%20a.jpg

If you're asking about clarity grades of colored stones - there aren't any, cause those are not diamonds. And with diamonds, I can't say anything about particular grades (although VVS and even SI should be completely fine), but stick to something like 'if the stone (be it diamond or anything else) has so much inclusions that it looks fuzzy, muddy or has an obviously affected clarity (visually) it's best not to set it in a ring unless bezel set' - just to be safe.

ummm..ok

I was referring to your previous post about inclusions affecting the wearability of coloured stones.

Now I'm more confused, as every coloured stone vendor offers clarity grades for their stones eg. http://www.whitesgems.com/gems/CHL001.htm click on "what does this mean" and a clarity grade table comes up, which to me looks the same as for diamonds..? This is just one example of many.
eg. http://www.customgemstones.com/GARNET/Garnet.htm every stone has a clarity grade/description.
I'm sorry, but have I misunderstood your statement?

I have purchased a number of diamonds and am comfortable with my understanding of the 4 c's there (including clarity)

, so I'm only referring to coloured stones in this thread.

ETA: oh, and thanks for fixing the link. This is what I thought you were describing