James Meyer owners-need your input/photos!

[CBL]

After several (failed) attempts at re-sets I''m back where I started and thinking I probably should have gone with James Meyer from the beginning. Oh well.

I have a couple questions though, specifically in regards to the 1345 setting:

1) Do you think your stone looks bigger post-bezel? Does his bezel work cover a lot of the stone? Any before/after pics that demonstrate this would be awesome.

2) Does the 1345 setting fit well with a wedding band? Does it sit very high? If so, can you ask him to set the stone a bit lower?

Any info would be greatly appreciated!

 

[waterlilly]

Hi CBL!

I do not have one of the stunning JM rings, but I do have a bezel that I recently designed w/whiteflash, so can answer some of you general bezel questions. I''m sure others with the JM ring will tell you, a full bezel absolutely makes your stone look bigger. I don''t feel the amount of stone covered is noticable at all (used to have a 6-prong.)

Not sure about the JM, but the WF sits perfectly flush with any band I''ve tried and I had them design it to sit very low - the stone is ~1mm above the band.

Fabulous choice, best of luck!

 

[Bella_mezzo]

CBL, I''m sure your reset will be amazing! HOpe you find something that you like this time.

Waterlily, Just wanted to say I

your ring!

 

[waterlilly]

Thank you, Bella!!

 

[Upgradable]

First off, the photos you requested....

 

[Upgradable]

Please forgive the size and my old hands!

 

[Upgradable]

... and the fact that this is a three stone and not a solitaire.

 

[Upgradable]

Date: 1/5/2010 4:29:21 PM
Author:CBL
After several (failed) attempts at re-sets I''m back where I started and thinking I probably should have gone with James Meyer from the beginning. Oh well.

I have a couple questions though, specifically in regards to the 1345 setting:

1) Do you think your stone looks bigger post-bezel? Does his bezel work cover a lot of the stone? Any before/after pics that demonstrate this would be awesome.

2) Does the 1345 setting fit well with a wedding band? Does it sit very high? If so, can you ask him to set the stone a bit lower?

Any info would be greatly appreciated!

Responses to:

1) The bezels are very delicate in real life! The metal covers just the edges of the stone so doesn''t artificially enhance or diminish the size of the stone.

2) The height of the mounting looks much higher in pictures than it does in reality. James'' pieces are so much more delicate than they appear in pictures! For the 1345, one of James'' bands would fit perfectly flush. Mine is a right hand piece so I don''t have a band, but the platform pieces are ideal for a flush fit. As for height.... on the hand, his pieces are PERFECTION!!!! I''m currently commissioning him for a colored stone piece.

I wish you the best of luck with your project!

 

[waterlilly]

Date: 1/5/2010 7:45:42 PM
Author: Upgradable
First off, the photos you requested....

Wow - what''s better than one perfect JM bezel? THREE!!
So beautiful!

CBL - I don''t ever recall anyone that has posted about having a JM piece made being anything other than head over heals for the finished product! I really don''t think you can go wrong with him!

 

[CBL]

waterlily, thank you! If I were going for modern full bezel, yours would be it--it's gorgeous! I think you're right about James Meyer pieces too...I'd have to be crazy to dislike this one. Then again, I wouldn't necessarily put it past me...(see head case comment below).

bella_mezzo, I truly hope I love it as well. I am such a re-set head case, sometimes I curse the day I found Pricescope...but most of the time I don't.

Uppy, your three stone is absolutely stunning, thanks for the pics. I can definitely tell how delicate the bezel is...I just keep thinking how I would love my 'one stone' to look ever-so-slightly larger than it actually is (DSS) and how the bezel might accomplish that. We shall see.

Any other JM owners wanna chime in? Specifically 1345 owners?

P.S. I'm thinking of going with the 1331, very similar but with itty bitty bezeled diamonds on the side.

 

[CBL]

OH, and one more question: Does anyone wear theirs with a diamond wedding band, or could you show pics with one? I am unsure of how it would look...

 

[blackberry16]

I had many of the same questions/concerns when I was considering the JM 1345. I agree with what was said before. I don''t know of anyone who was anything less than thrilled with the finished product!

1. I was very worried about how high the profile looked in pictures ( I have never liked high profiles). I too considered asking if the profile could be lowered. But my hubby and I finally decided that lowering the profile would change the perfect proportions of the setting. When the ring actually arrived it wasn''t nearly as high as I had thought it would be. It is just high enough to let in all the light possible under the stone.

2. The bezel did in fact make my diamond look much bigger, which is interesting because the bezel itself is so thin and dainty it is almost not there at all.

3. I agree that it is impossible to convey in pictures just how delicate the ring is in person. If you think that setting is beautiful in pictures you can''t imagine how stunning it is in person. I would never try and recreate that ring using another jeweler b/c if the proportions are off just a little it will be a completely different and less beautiful setting.

4. As far as the band goes, I wear my original 2mm platinum wedding band with the ring. It sits pretty flush and I love the way it looks paired with a band.

Here is the before of my ring. It is a 1.10 rb in a six prong setting:

Here is the same diamond in a JM 1345:

 

[CBL]

blackberry, thanks, I was hoping you''d reply! Your ring is absolutely stunning.
I guess these responses are what I expected but definitely helping me move toward making the final decision. (Final...hah, we shall see!!)
It is a gorgeous setting.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I too have been curious about how it would look with a diamond band. Maybe some nice PSer will take a photo for us?

 

[arjunajane]

CBL,

I have the 1345 with a coloured stone cushion, but if I had my time again I wouldn't hesitate to have it as my ering.

Agree completely with what uppy said - the bezel will enhance your stone a lil, but it covers hardly any of the edges.
- the platform style makes for the perfect fit for a wedding band. If it were me, I would most likely go all the way and have Jim make a matching band - either a plain one like Coati's awesome set or I'm sure he could do a diamond one.
- I wouldn't ask Jim to adjust the setting, except to convey your desire for it to sit as low as possible. He has a very innate skill of making this setting work perfectly for every shape of stone, imho - the proprtions are always perfect.
I very much like low low profiles, and I have no problems wearing mine.

I don't own a diamond band sorry or I would take photos for you - if you do buy the band somewhere else, just be aware of the height and style is the advice I would give. You don't want anything to obscure the awesome open side view! plus of course I don't think more modern diamond style would suit tyhe 1345.

Here is mine pictured with a vintage band that I have:

 

[heliotrope]

I just want to confirm most of what has been said above...

we bought my ering finished from Jim - but looking at the stone cert and getting out my ruler I can see that the little bezel only just covers the edge of the stone

I also get a lot of people with 2ct stones comparing their ring next to mine - as they think that mine is also that size??

and I must admit I also think they look the similar from as close as one meter but mine is 1.57ct - so maybe that confirms the optical illusion of the JM bezel??

re: the wedding band - we are not married yet - but I am going to work with Jim on a design to sit next to the ring

I am also thinking of sneaking a fine thin Leon 1.8mm diamond eternity next to the wedding band

IMO it replicates the super thin shank on my 1360

I have tried on some of my friends eternity bands (being in Australia we don't have the options you guys have at retail) and the thinner pave or super fine milgrain edged ones look much nicer than the wider versions when you put it alongside a plain band

here is a pic - please forgive my wrinkled hands - I was very dehydrated and jet lagged when I took these first shots

 

[princesss]

Do you mind if I tack on a question?

How delicate are the ends of the split shank (where they meet the bezel)? I see them in pictures and they look so big, and I wonder if they really pop out from the side of the bezel the way they seem to in pictures. The 1345 is my dream setting, but for a round stone those little corners kind of bug me. I don''t mind it on a cushion, but it seems to square off round stones. Is that what it''s like IRL?

 

[blackberry16]

I thought that I would chime in about the diamond wedding band issue. I have considered this option and have tried on several and IMO I really think that a diamond band detracts from the details of the setting. I think that is why there is not an abundance of diamond ring being paired with this setting.

Princess: I was also fairly concerned about the ends of the shanks since in the pictures they do seem pretty prominent. I have a round diamond and in person I don''t think that are that big and I like them quite a bit.

 

[coati]

Date: 1/7/2010 2:08:00 PM
Author: princesss
Do you mind if I tack on a question?


How delicate are the ends of the split shank (where they meet the bezel)? I see them in pictures and they look so big, and I wonder if they really pop out from the side of the bezel the way they seem to in pictures. The 1345 is my dream setting, but for a round stone those little corners kind of bug me. I don''t mind it on a cushion, but it seems to square off round stones. Is that what it''s like IRL?

Hiya princesss,
The round ends are actually very delicate. They look magnified in pics, and I wondered the same thing when I ordered my ring. They don''t square off a round stone, because they are about halfway tucked under the bezel-if that makes sense. When I received the ring, I realized how necessary they are to the design, as they create a pedestal of sorts.

Here''s a rl perspective type of shot, so you can see that they are not that prominent and that the shape of the round is not disrupted. hth!

 

[coati]

Date: 1/5/2010 4:29:21 PM
Author:CBL
After several (failed) attempts at re-sets I'm back where I started and thinking I probably should have gone with James Meyer from the beginning. Oh well.


I have a couple questions though, specifically in regards to the 1345 setting:


1) Do you think your stone looks bigger post-bezel? Does his bezel work cover a lot of the stone? Any before/after pics that demonstrate this would be awesome.


2) Does the 1345 setting fit well with a wedding band? Does it sit very high? If so, can you ask him to set the stone a bit lower?


Any info would be greatly appreciated!

1) My stone measures a little over 8mm, and with the bezel, (inner and outer--the bottom area which connects to the shank) it measures a little over 9mm. To me the difference is not remarkable, because when my stone was prong set, it had the same visual impact.

2) Not high at all, but this is to be determined on a stone by stone basis. Jim will determine how it will be set according to his design, but it's always good to ask if you want your stone to be set low.

Here's a (HUGE haha) profile pic, so you can see how low it's set.

Princesss-ignore those big...er...rounded thingies

 

[princesss]

Coati, thank you so much! That RL perspective helps a ton. That''s the only aspect of the ring I was worried about, but I''m so hesitant to think about changing the design at all because the proportions are so perfect. But knowing how pictures (at least, PS-worthy pictures) are enlarged and focused to show every little detail, I was wondering if, like most things, they would fade into the background when you''re not seeing it from an inch away and magnified 500 times!

 

[coati]

Princesss-you''re very welcome!
Yes, our pics magnify everything. It''s one of the most delicate rings I''ve seen-the details are very fine, and you will enjoy.

I didn''t know you had a stone-is it the stone in your avatar? I''d love to see more pics-is there a thread?

 

[princesss]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:14:57 PM
Author: coatimundi
Princesss-you're very welcome!
Yes, our pics magnify everything. It's one of the most delicate rings I've seen-the details are very fine, and you will enjoy.

I didn't know you had a stone-is it the stone in your avatar? I'd love to see more pics-is there a thread?

I don't have *the* stone. That's still a while away. I am just a researcher at heart, and saw a chance to ask my question.

I do have *a* stone, though. I bought myself a .18 ct OEC after Christmas to celebrate my first promotion. I'll find the thread for you....

ETA: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-first-diamond.132590/

 

[coati]

Lovely stone! Congratulations on your promotion!

Preplanning is always good. Are you thinking oec for your engagement ring?

 

[coati]

Date: 1/6/2010 11:29:18 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
I too have been curious about how it would look with a diamond band. Maybe some nice PSer will take a photo for us?

It looks really good...

 

[princesss]

Thank you.

I''m thinking about GOG''s AV round. I love the chunky facets of OECs and I love the personality, but I''m a sucker for the facet pattern and the optimization of light return that GOG worked out. But if I found an OEC with comparable light return that had a facet pattern that calls to me, I would prefer to go with the OEC. BF is big on antiques, and what can I say? He has his kind of antiques, and I have mine.

 

[stepcutgirl]

Show us the picture Coati!

 

[coati]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:38:12 PM
Author: princesss
Thank you.

I''m thinking about GOG''s AV round. I love the chunky facets of OECs and I love the personality, but I''m a sucker for the facet pattern and the optimization of light return that GOG worked out. But if I found an OEC with comparable light return that had a facet pattern that calls to me, I would prefer to go with the OEC. BF is big on antiques, and what can I say? He has his kind of antiques, and I have mine.

Nice! And nice that bf is into antiques. I have a feeling you guys will work that out quite well...

 

[coati]

Date: 1/7/2010 3:39:56 PM
Author: stepcutgirl
Show us the picture Coati!

I''m in pre-planning...haha No pic yet.

 

[heliotrope]

Coati - would you mind sharing what width of band you have been peeping at??

I have been looking at channel set french cuts as they look old world to me - but it could end up totally overpowering due to the width

otherwise the super thin pave feels right as it sits well with the band width and the delicate milgrain...