Leon Mege Setting Choices

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:48:32 PM
Author: Lynn B
Haaaaarieeeet,
We've been through this before...

Do you want to see a *RING* or a *DIAMOND*?

Lynn,

Sorreeee.

I've never forgotten your wise words. I repeated them to DF yesterday, and he thinks you can see both in #2.

Btw, I love your new avatar.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 1:31:00 PM
Author: kcoursolle
I prefer number 2, who needs a wedding band when it looks like there is already one with it anyways? I actually prefer the look of a split shank than the look of a normal setting with a wedding band b/c a split shank is symmetrical whereas a regular set is not when paired with a band.

I really love the design of number two. It''s really a spectacular ring and it is not overkill for your stone. A halo would be overkill, but a split shank just shows it off.

Number 1 is simple...and plain. Yes it will show the stone off, but the ring itself will not look as spectacular in my opinion than set in number 2.

I had not thought about the symmetry issue. Asymmetry bothers me. Thanks! Also, #1 won''t be entirely flush with a wedding band, which might bug me.

 

[elmo]

Along those lines I have another thought here. If you could be happy with any of these i.e. can't readily eliminate any one design, it would be a nice surprise if you turned him loose and gave Leon instructions to give you no further info. Surprise design, surprise when you get it, etc. You both might enjoy this. Edit: of course after much friendly discussion and debate on the merits of each one.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 1:43:43 PM
Author: Gypsy
I like number two. But number one is nice too. If you get a number of nice bands for number one... that sounds good. But personally, I''d like the split shank, especially if your FI prefers. it.

Thanks, Gypsy!

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 1:51:35 PM
Author: Ellen
I love #2, but I wouldn''t want it for an every day ring, the colored stone would be scrumptious in it....

And I think the first looks too delicate for your boulder, I mean, stone, Harriet.

I know you said you like single prongs, but for your substantial stone, if it were me, I''d put it in a bit more substantial setting, like this:

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=350

(wish there were more views of it)



Guess I''m no help, huh?

See why I have to bother you ladies again?

 

[Beacon]

Hi Harriet,

As I recall you have your stone in a Tiffany replica six prong right now. I don''t know if going with option 1 from Leon is actally going to look all that much different. Yes, it will be somewhat different, but it seems like a lot of trouble for not that much of a change.

Your second option is nice but I tend to agree with others that you might tire of it as a permanent ering setting due to the lack of flexibility.

If it were me, I''d go slow and really think it over. Why are you taking it out of the Tiffany replica? What you you hoping to change about the appearance of the ring in a new setting? Will this Leon be the permanent setting, or just another temporary? (Be honest

). Maybe it will be clearer to you so you can make choices more easily.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:02:40 PM
Author: isaku5
I''m with Ellen on this one, and if Leon will customize the setting so that it complements your beautiful RB, then run with it. For the long term, I think a simpler setting is more appropriate and timeless as an engagement ring. The split shank would be great with a coloured gemstone as a RHR.

I like the fact that your DF is so involved in the decision making, but remember that it''s being worn on your finger hopefully for a looonnnngg time.

Thanks, Isabel. DF is involved (

), but will respect my wishes.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:06:43 PM
Author: Kaleigh
My vote goes to #1, a timeless classic beauty. You can have a great time wearing different bands with it, so much fun. So many options. The second one is gorgeous, but for some reason it hits me as more of a RHR setting. Not sure why, but there ya go.

Thanks, Kaleigh.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:22:16 PM
Author: Kajamie

Date: 7/2/2007 1:51:35 PM
Author: Ellen
I love #2, but I wouldn''t want it for an every day ring, the colored stone would be scrumptious in it....

And I think the first looks too delicate for your boulder, I mean, stone, Harriet.

I know you said you like single prongs, but for your substantial stone, if it were me, I''d put it in a bit more substantial setting, like this:

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=350

(wish there were more views of it)



Guess I''m no help, huh?

I love this one too! I think a stone your size warrants a more substantial setting. IMHO, this one would balance out your gorgeous stone- it''s substantial, but classic and timeless.

Sorry, but I don''t like it. No offence meant to you, Ellen, and Skip.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:23:58 PM
Author: thing2of2
I like crown1''s idea! You can always put a colored stone in the setting if you really don''t like it and get your simple solitaire.

I love #2 and I think it would look amazing with your RB. Plus you can always get the 3 colored diamond bands anyways and wear them as a RHR or alone on the left hand when you don''t want to wear your beautiful diamond!

I may be wrong, but I think Leon doesn''t recommend re-using his pave settings.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:41:11 PM
Author: Maisie
Oooh Harriet! I love the first setting. Its just so beautiful! I love the simplicity but to me it also looks like you spent a lot of money if that makes sense. I have looked at that one before and I would love it (if I had more money lol!)

Of course it does, dearie.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Another thought: With option 1, you could collect eternity bands made of every stone shape and change them around.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 4:06:05 PM
Author: elmo
Along those lines I have another thought here. If you could be happy with any of these i.e. can''t readily eliminate any one design, it would be a nice surprise if you turned him loose and gave Leon instructions to give you no further info. Surprise design, surprise when you get it, etc. You both might enjoy this. Edit: of course after much friendly discussion and debate on the merits of each one.

Thanks, but I''ll pass. Too much of a price difference to warrant a surprise!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/2/2007 4:15:04 PM
Author: Harriet
Sorry, but I don''t like it. No offence meant to you, Ellen, and Skip.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 4:09:13 PM
Author: Beacon
Hi Harriet,

As I recall you have your stone in a Tiffany replica six prong right now. I don''t know if going with option 1 from Leon is actally going to look all that much different. Yes, it will be somewhat different, but it seems like a lot of trouble for not that much of a change.

Your second option is nice but I tend to agree with others that you might tire of it as a permanent ering setting due to the lack of flexibility.

If it were me, I''d go slow and really think it over. Why are you taking it out of the Tiffany replica? What you you hoping to change about the appearance of the ring in a new setting? Will this Leon be the permanent setting, or just another temporary? (Be honest

). Maybe it will be clearer to you so you can make choices more easily.

Hi Beacon,
I think #1 will be substantially different from my current setting. There will be a lot less metal around my stone.
The Tiffany replica was never meant to be permanent. I also don''t like the idea of having a replica. The next setting will be permanent, I promise. Thanks for playing devil''s advocate.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 4:19:20 PM
Author: Madam Bijoux
Another thought: With option 1, you could collect eternity bands made of every stone shape and change them around.

Great minds think alike.

 

[lizardofaz]

I vote for Number 1! I LOVE this setting and would give anything to see a finger shot of this baby! Do you bychance know how low the stone will have to be set? I was wondering how well this setting will accomodate an eternity band. (Right now it''s the number one contender for my own upgrade later this year so I''m curious for selfish reasons!)

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 4:32:02 PM
Author: lizardofaz
I vote for Number 1! I LOVE this setting and would give anything to see a finger shot of this baby! Do you bychance know how low the stone will have to be set? I was wondering how well this setting will accomodate an eternity band. (Right now it''s the number one contender for my own upgrade later this year so I''m curious for selfish reasons!)

Pretty low, I think. Congrats on your upcoming upgrade!

 

[Harriet]

Thus far, of those who picked (Ellen!), 15 chose #1 and 10 chose #2.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/2/2007 5:33:19 PM
Author: Harriet
Thus far, of those who picked (Ellen!), 15 chose #1 and 10 chose #2.

What? I picked one, it just wasn''t in the line up.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 7/2/2007 5:36:58 PM
Author: Ellen
What? I picked one, it just wasn''t in the line up.

You didn''t play by the rules!

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 7/2/2007 11:56:52 AM
Author: Harriet

Date: 7/2/2007 11:54:15 AM

Author: boston_jeff

I am obviously a little biased, as my fiance''s ring is based on #1 (a few minor tweaks, double prongs, etc)


It depends on the look you are going for. I think it does not get any better than a big stone in a thin simple solitaire. I''d go with #1 and between you and Leon I''m sure you will get the ''perfect'' thickness and lines to compliment the stone.

Thanks! I was hoping you''d chime in. Does your fiancee find her ring flimsy, as some fear?

No, no, no. It is just a perfectly proportioned, delicate solitaire, but I have no durability concerns whatsoever, not does it look flimsy; just very delicate.

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 7/2/2007 12:10:07 PM
Author: Lucyh
Boston Jeff- I thought you had purchased the Classic Solitare? I think this is a little different then what Harriet has posted.


Harriet, what is the difference between the 2 settings, besides the double vs. single claws and the thinness of the band.

Hi everyone...

There is a little bit of confusion because Leon has both Image IDs (for the individual piece) and Style names.

There are at least three different rings on Leon''s site that are called "Solitaire ''Classic''" of varying thicknesses and other details.

I will post the three that I could find below.

 

[boston_jeff]

Here's the one Harriet posted: Image ID r572 (Ring Solitaire Classic)


This was the ring I used as a template for the fiance's ring-- I did not say "Ring Solitaire Classic," I said "r572," and made changes from there...

 

[boston_jeff]

Here''s the fiance''s: Image ID r907 (Ring Solitaire Classic)

 

[boston_jeff]

Sorry... try again...

 

[boston_jeff]

And here''s the thickest one, Image ID r776 (Ring Solitaire Classic)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/2/2007 2:01:56 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 7/2/2007 1:51:35 PM
Author: Ellen
I love #2, but I wouldn''t want it for an every day ring, the colored stone would be scrumptious in it....

And I think the first looks too delicate for your boulder, I mean, stone, Harriet.

I know you said you like single prongs, but for your substantial stone, if it were me, I''d put it in a bit more substantial setting, like this:

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=350

(wish there were more views of it)



Guess I''m no help, huh?

Yah, Ellen! I like that one the best!

Double ditto. I think that is the setting someone recommended earlier:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-upgrade-and-second-leon.63349/

I honestly think that first setting is too thin for a 3 ct. stone, and the split shank pave ring is just not practical for 24/7. It is much better for a RHR, IMO. I love the setting in the link above!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/2/2007 6:07:43 PM
Author: boston_jeff
Sorry... try again...

Okay, I like Jeff''s setting far better than #1. I just read that you didn''t like that last link from Ellen, but maybe Jeff''s would be a good compromise?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/2/2007 6:10:57 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 7/2/2007 2:01:56 PM
Author: Skippy123


Yah, Ellen! I like that one the best!

Double ditto. I think that is the setting someone recommended earlier:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-upgrade-and-second-leon.63349/

I honestly think that first setting is too thin for a 3 ct. stone, and the split shank pave ring is just not practical for 24/7. It is much better for a RHR, IMO. I love the setting in the link above!

Neener neener.

Just razzin ya Harriet.

well, kinda....I still vote for that one.

And ds, let''s make sure we get the size right. It''s 3 1/2 cts.! Which REALLY makes me think the first one is too thin....