Just ebayed an OMC - antique lovers please advise

[valmanin]

Hello all! Well, my plans may have changed regarding the setting.

Have you ever felt like nothing just felt right? That's how I have been feeling...like I am just not feeling settled on anything regarding the setting for my 3.33 OEC.

Well, in the meantime I have been looking for a little half carat pendant and I fell in LOVE with this ring so I bid on it and WON! So excited. It's a wonky little OMC that I think looks so charming. It was a total emotional purchase...I just had to have it. I don't even know color and clarity other than it's totally eye clean (from seller's perspective). I also think this setting is just perfect AND I will actually get to see it in person.

So, I am wondering if it would be possible to:

-Take the whole head out from between the shank of the ring and keep the diamond set. Somehow transform that into a pendant. Any ideas how to do that?

-Then, make a head for the 3.33 that is similar but obviously a lot bigger and attach it between the shank. Would this work or look bizarre with that setting made for a .57 ct OMC? There is an antique Tiffany setting that I have had in my folder forever and it reminds me of this setting but of course with a bigger diamond. I love the Tiffany setting but don't necessarily like how wide the shank is as it approaches the head.

Here is my new baby:


For reference, here is the Tiffany ring with a bigger diamond:

 

[diamondseeker2006]

What a precious ring!!! I hate to say this, but I really hate to see it taken apart! But I think a jeweler will have to answer your question. My only other thought is that this is going to be really, really tiny in comparison to a 3 ct ring. I think you should go to 1+ cts. for a pendant to look a little more in proportion. I actually don't wear my family .80 stone in a pendant because I think it looks too small. I plan to have it reset if I can figure out what I want to put it in.

But to comment on the indecision on a setting for your ring stone, I am right there with you! Hard to commit to one thing when one doesn't stand out to the point of being certain. Heck, I can't even settle on a diamond!

 

[valmanin]

Thanks DS. I think it's precious too! I would love to have a 1ct. pendant eventually, but this is my starting point. Plus, I really like delicate necklaces.

The other thing I may do would be to remove the stone...sell the setting and have Adam copy the setting. Options options.

 

[AprilBaby]

Pretty ring. I think the larger diamond might be a bit too big for that setting. It will make it look tiny.

 

[missy]

Ooh, it's beautiful valmanin! Just lovely!

I'm with DS in that I am a bit sad to take the diamond from its setting but I totally understand why you want to do it. It's just so pretty together. Though I am sure it will look amazing as a pendant too. A very delicate look.

And that setting is great. I bet a setting just like it made for your 3.33 OEC would be the perfect home for your diamond.

 

[valmanin]

Thanks everyone!

I know it may seem crazy but I really like the idea of using the shank of that ring for my 3.33. I know there are psers that have experience repurposing jewelry so I am hoping they will give me their opinion.

I don't like taking the setting apart either, but if I used both parts they wouldn't be far from each other...hand and neck.

 

[IE_Princess]

It's so pretty, and I do think you can take apart the ring and make a pendant. I'm not so sure about being able to use the shank though; it sounds like your other stone will need a very large head and there might not be room. Hmm, unless you cut the shank at the bottom and then rebuild/reshape it to make room for the head. Maybe that would work.

 

[valmanin]

It's so pretty, and I do think you can take apart the ring and make a pendant. I'm not so sure about being able to use the shank though; it sounds like your other stone will need a very large head and there might not be room. Hmm, unless you cut the shank at the bottom and then rebuild/reshape it to make room for the head. Maybe that would work.

Thanks Princess! If it comes to that I think I would just leave it be and have Adam copy the design.

 

[valmanin]

Anyone out there with experience with settings or just more knowledge than me about how they work? I would really love to get a feel for if this could work with the 3.33 or not before I talk to Adam and look like a big dork.

 

[valmanin]

Okay...well maybe someone can give an opinion on this then:

If I were to have Adam just copy that setting but make a whole new one for my 3.33, would it be scaled up in size so much that it would end up looking to thick in the shank?

If that would work better I may just sell the whole ring and get another pendant stone that doesn't have to be removed...and just use this ring as an inspiration for design.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, made to scale for a much larger diamond, you are going to have a pretty wide shank next to that head. I love that setting with small stones, but I don't like what would happen to the shank with large center stones.

 

[valmanin]

Yes, made to scale for a much larger diamond, you are going to have a pretty wide shank next to that head. I love that setting with small stones, but I don't like what would happen to the shank with large center stones.

That's what I thought too...just needed confirmation.

What am I missing that I can't understand why a new head (yes much larger) can't get put in between that shank then? Would it just look weird?

I wish I could tell how many mm the shank is at it's narrowest and widest.

 

[IE_Princess]

What am I missing that I can't understand why a new head (yes much larger) can't get put in between that shank then? Would it just look weird?

I took my Van Craeynest set into VC and asked about removing the small head (currently holds a .45 MRB) and putting on a large fleur de lis head to hold a 1.75 OEC, and was told that the amount of work to change it would cost too much and that I'd be better off ordering a new semi-mount. Now to be fair, the person helping me that day wasn't Paul and didn't take the ring back to ask the VC bench what they thought. My diamond isn't set down like yours, so I really didn't understand why it would be so much work. I decided to sell the VC set instead.

 

[GemFever]

Valmanin, have you emailed Adam to ask about this? Perhaps he could copy the idea of the setting without copying every single proportion. I think if you pull the shoulders apart, the angle at which they meet the head will be off, they might end up sticking out too much.

Ok, I made a super crude sketch, and it's probably terribly out of scale. But you could play around with MS Paint (or whatever the Apple equivalent is if you use Apple) and see if it works.

The line in the middle is me trying to get the approximate size of the OMC, which is around 5mm. Then I doubled it (minus a tiny chunk) to approximate the 9.4mm size of the 3.33.



sorry for all the edits, wrong file keeps loading.

 

[valmanin]

Valmanin, have you emailed Adam to ask about this? Perhaps he could copy the idea of the setting without copying every single proportion. I think if you pull the shoulders apart, the angle at which they meet the head will be off, they might end up sticking out too much.

Ok, I made a super crude sketch, and it's probably terribly out of scale. But you could play around with MS Paint (or whatever the Apple equivalent is) and see if it works.

... deleted file. Gonna try again with better measurements

Okay...yes...now I understand. That makes sense about the angles at the end of the shoulders being off with a bigger stone. I am an artist NOT an engineer. Sometimes I just dream things will work when technically they won't darnit.

Cant' wait to see the sketch!!!

THanks so much GemFever for ALL your help!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, made to scale for a much larger diamond, you are going to have a pretty wide shank next to that head. I love that setting with small stones, but I don't like what would happen to the shank with large center stones.

That's what I thought too...just needed confirmation.

What am I missing that I can't understand why a new head (yes much larger) can't get put in between that shank then? Would it just look weird?

I wish I could tell how many mm the shank is at it's narrowest and widest.

The base of the head for a 3 ct stone is a lot bigger than the base of a .5, so that is why it isn't going to fit into that setting unless as someone has already said, they just cut that ring in half, fit the new head in, and then rejoin the bottom together. But I think you lose the effect of that style in a way. I am just not sure it is going to be as charming as it is on the little ring you now have. I'd rather you see some settings with comparable size stones to see how they really look.

(The one GemFever drew is good, but it still doesn't show the head as low and wide as it would be for that setting design.)

 

[GemFever]

Sure thing! If you end up asking Adam about this, please come back and tell us what he says. I often wonder whether some pieces can be converted into others, but I have no experience at all.

 

[AnnaH]

Val, love that diamond and ring! If it wasn't too much of an investment, maybe you should consider keeping it as is. For instance, some people don't like to travel with a diamond as valuable as your 3.33.
Would it be less expensive to have Adam copy the design? Wouldn't he make a CAD for you?
I also like the idea of a pendant.