Jewelry where photography doesn't show the half of it?

[Circe]

I went to Greenwich Jewelers last week and saw my first Van Craeynest in person. All I can say is, WOW. I'd admired their work in the past, but our photos are so detailed that I guess my mind automatically translated detail to bulk. Not so! The finest work I've seen - like it was crafted by elves.

Anything ever surprise you all like that, or is it just me?

 

[armywife13]

I can definitely understand that. In my experience, macro photography is great at showing details, but not at showing delicacy.

I find my Julia bezel is very delicate, but in macro photos it shows as a very substantial, thick bezel.

ETA-I am definitely jealous that you got to see some Van Craeynest pieces in person! One day I hope to see, or maybe even own one!

 

[madelise]

I think all jewelry looks much better in person

Well.. most. I can say a lot of those maul store websites show much more beauty than what they actually show in real life!


I love how pave melee looks IRL, and don't always like it in photos.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Circe, yes, VC is spectacular and very, very special! Photos absolutely do not do it justice. Also, I think pictures never do diamonds and colored stones justice. The best jewelry and stones always are better in person. And not much can beat VC, in my opinion.

 

[Imdanny]

To be honest, my Cartier wedding band surprised me just last night!

I've had it for only a few months after wanting it for a long time as many of you know.

My hand was in a position and the light was apparently in the right place that I saw in from the side and the best way I can describe it is it looked like the ring went almost straight up but just a tiny bit before the dome started curving.

I looked at and I had a Wow! moment.

My belief is its poured into a mold so they were unlimited in what they could do with the design. It's always beautiful to me whenever I study it closely.

I couldn't be happier with a ring. I'm totally in love with it.

I' haven't seen a lot of jewels up close and personal but I'd like to! Sometimes I look at things on the internet and think, "If I could only spend a day with that." I'd guess that most jewels would be even more impressive if you could see them in person and not behind glass.

 

[JewelFreak]

[quote="Imdanny|1346532288|3261010"Sometimes I look at things on the internet and think, "If I could only spend a day with that." [/quote]
Me too, Danny. Well put. A day, or a year, or eternity in some cases.

Super about your ring! Wonderful how one so-called simple thing can give us so much pleasure. Glad yours is lasting!

--- Laurie

 

[Imdanny]

Laurie, thank you!

About my ring- soo lasting! I don't take it for granted. It's a blessing.

 

[Efe]

I feel the same way about Simon G pieces. They are beautiful in real life but don't always show so well in pictures.

 

[ksinger]

Well, every modern piece of jewelry I've seen in my life, in photos or in person, is a piece of crap.

Yesterday I visited the Dallas Museum of Art's Etruscan/Greek/Roman gold jewelry collection. The workmanship in those pieces - done thousands of years ago without any of the modern tools like high magnification and laser welders - makes the very best modern pieces I've seen - even the granulated pieces - look like they were executed by a caveman with ADD. The granulation looked like superfine sugar it was so incredibly tiny. Even the Tara Brooch, which I have seen in person and is spectacular, suffered in comparison. Seriously, I was about to hyperventilate. I forgot and leaned on the case to get a better look and the docent had to kindly remind me that the alarms might go off and to not touch the wood of the case.

My dream would be to be able to get my eye and magnifying glass about 1/2 an inch from those pieces and gaze for hours...

 

[Imdanny]

Well, every modern piece of jewelry I've seen in my life, in photos or in person, is a piece of crap.

Yesterday I visited the Dallas Museum of Art's Etruscan/Greek/Roman gold jewelry collection. The workmanship in those pieces - done thousands of years ago without any of the modern tools like high magnification and laser welders - makes the very best modern pieces I've seen - even the granulated pieces - look like they were executed by a caveman with ADD. The granulation looked like superfine sugar it was so incredibly tiny. Even the Tara Brooch, which I have seen in person and is spectacular, suffered in comparison. Seriously, I was about to hyperventilate. I forgot and leaned on the case to get a better look and the docent had to kindly remind me that the alarms might go off and to not touch the wood of the case.
I
My dream would be to be able to get my eye and magnifying glass about 1/2 an inch from those pieces and gaze for hours...

This is from the (paraphrasing) 'What good is white gold?' thread at the top the jewelry forum now (Yssie FTW! LOL!) but anyway, to be clear, this was a point Laurie made. I was only agreeing with her.

Written by JewelFreak » 12 Aug 2012 00:32:
Of course gold has had a cache since pre-history that silver can't match.


"Agreed. And IMHO there is no other precious metal that can match it.

I've always been intrigued by the famous quote attributed to King Louis (the I forget which number) about platinum. He is supposed to have said that platinum was the only metal fit for a king. I personally have never seen any evidence that he actually said it.

But even assuming that he said it, we're talking about around 1 3/4 mellennia after the year 0 and gold had already been used for thousands of years before then. The variety and virtuosity of what has been done with gold is unrivaled."

This is not to say I don't like Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, and Oscar Heyman from the beginning of the 20th century until today. It is my main focus but still... I hear you.