Mara/Griff/CutNut/Val...everyone can you please help...

[icelovr]

With an 8.22 x 8.20 center for this setting - will these be too big, too small - or just WOW.
I have asked for the sarins - I''ll probably get them tomorrow...

0.58 G SI1 GIA $1,413 60.3 56 EX EX None 5.44x5.47x3.29
0.59 G SI1 GIA $1,417 60.4 57 EX EX None 5.43x5.46x3.29
0.59 G SI1 GIA $1,438 61.0 56 EX EX None 5.42x5.49x3.33

Also, how much can they differ on the HCA w/o noticing a real difference. The center scored an HCA of 0.7

Thanks in advance for the help -

 

[Mara]

Those would be lovely with a side stone of that size! They would be smaller in ratio, but still very lovely. I personally like it when the side stones are a little smaller than maybe others would like, it makes the center stone really POP out at you more!




For the HCA...just stick under 2.0 with a good cut and #'s...nice idealscope images and you should be more than fine! I wouldn't pair a well-cut stone with only 'good' cut side stones but sounds like you are on the right track with getting the extra information you will need to make an educated decision.




Recently...a few months back Valeria posted a cool Photoshopped image of a 3 stone with different side stones in terms of 'ratio' ...I will have to see if I can find it so you can see what it would look like.

 

[Mara]

Found it..here it is. Yours would be kind of in between the 62% and the 70% ratio. I think it looks great.

 

[valeria101]

He he... that should turn out a great ring!
The center is more than 2cts, isn't it... And the setting is a DVatche... right? These are my assumptions, at this point.

The largest "standard" Dvatche of this type is made for 2cts total - meaning a much smaller center (probably around 1ct), mo matter waht the sides are. You would need a custom setting for your stones (from the same maker, if you so wish, tehy will still need to make one for you). These being said, I hope the ring will not be made size 3 - because in such a case, the jeweler will have to seriously alter the profile of the ring to fit all the rocks on top

For example, in the setting posted, the length of the lined-up stones is about the same with the inner diameter of the ring. For my 3.5 size, this would mean about 15mm. Your stones would need 5mm (almost the diameter of one of the sides) more to get properly aranged (the setting allows a bit of space between stones too).

Depending on the ring's size, some modification of the setting's look will most likely need to be done. I would not select the side stones without asking the setting' maker about such technical detail. This can well be done over the phone. Traditionally, the jeweler would provide the side stones (and not just for off-the-rack, inexpensive rings) there is some reason to it...

 

[Griffin]

I personally feel that in most cases a ratio between about .6:1 and .75:1 is optimal for most designs of this type, lower the larger the stones get.
I think that a .66:1 is a very beautiful aspect ratio for a three-stone set up, and with the relative sizes involved is exactly what I would have picked myself.
I know many people think that three-stone rings should have very close ratios - .8:1 and even 1:1 - but my feeling is that this only detracts from the ring.

If two of the side stones work out to be well matched to each other, I think it will be absolutely stunning.

BTW - I would mainly focus only on making sure the side stones match each other. Nothing will make all three stones match in light properties in any case, as the different sizes behave differently, and smaller stones tend to look brighter than larger ones with the same numbers.

My guess is that side stones with HCA's as good as the center stones might not even be what you want. They might outperform the center stone, perhaps markedly.
Do any of the diamond experts have any input on this one? I'm just guessing based on a very few past experiences with this effect.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 6:48:59 AM Griffin wrote:



My guess is that side stones with HCA's as good as the center stones might not even be what you want. They might outperform the center stone, perhaps markedly.
Do any of the diamond experts have any input on this one? I'm just guessing based on a very few past experiences with this effect.----------------

He he... I do agree. Following this logic, some argued that bigger stone need more facets ! At least one branded cut actually goes for it (cutting up to 80 facets on 3 caraters) - only I can't possibly remember which right now

Much of the visual impression of diamonds is made up by the light flashed send by facets - and the size of those facets does matter. This is why step cuts are less 'sparkly' with their larger facets... However, before hittig 30cts or so, this discussion remains among the 'splitting hair' non-issues on my list

Surely, small standard RBCs are suposed to look different than the larger ones and all three stone rings stand testimony to how accepted and admired this 'look' is. I would surely get all the stones with HCA below 2 and as much light return as possible. Just my opinion, of course...

 

[icelovr]

Mara -
This really helped - I couldn't imagine what it would look like and feared they would look more like the first pic in the series - which I want to stay wayyyy away from - I too want the center to POP out and say 'hey look at me'

. I will post the Sarins when I get them...

 

[icelovr]

Interesting you should bring up those points Val - I called about the setting - the largest Vatche makes (not custom) is for a 2ct center w/ .50 (each) sides - they (DBOF) called Vatche and they can make it for the stones I am considering - but you are right, it will be custom - I don't have to have a name brand - just the style - so I am hunting out an artist now...any suggestions? My ring size is a 5 3/4 - will this all fit? - I thought it would, but I'm not sure...I'll keep ya (all) posted

 

[Patty]

icelovr, My ring was made by Vatche and they had to make it custom because my side stones were bigger than the standard side stones in their settings.

As for size and it all fitting, my ring is a 5 1/2. My center diamond is 7.2mms and the sapphires are 5.4mms each. That is 18mms total. I think you will be fine with your stones all fitting. My side stones are sort of angled down a bit so the total diameter of the three stones is not 18mms across.

 

[icelovr]

Hey Griffin -
I agree w/ you thoughts on the .8:1 and larger - I think the dwarf the center and take away from the piece. Someone at work has a 1.75center w/ .75 on each side - I think it looks all mushed together (a setting issue too) - and takes away from the center...just my opinion...I don't want to outperform my center - how do I avoid that???

 

[icelovr]

when matching them - what do I focus on - the table?, depth?, mm/? (how far off can they be) the ones I am looking at are pretty close, but the table is off a little, or the mm are off by 1/100th - which should be closer matched? I was looking closely at the first 2 - they seem almost identical - but thier performance is another story...

** 0.58 G SI1 60.3 56 EX EX None 5.44x5.47x3.29
** 0.59 G SI1 60.4 57 EX EX None 5.43x5.46x3.29
0.59 G SI1 61.0 56 EX EX None 5.42x5.49x3.33

Re: their performance - how do I know it won't outperform my center? - Do I have them send them to me to see? - Oh geez... I thought finding the center was bad...

RE: the setting - will a handmade setting look cheesy - if I have it made to be similar - the Vatche costs a fortune for the setting w/ stones - and they aren't the best quality - they're good - don't get me wrong - but like Mara said (and others that could get the setting) - they aren't ideal cut and I could do better $ wise - picking out my own...

Thoughts?

 

[icelovr]

Really - did you get the truffle setting - I can't tell from the pic (I assume that is the ring you're referencing). If I get the stones separately, I just have to pay for the setting, but DBOF won't sell just the setting. Their setting (Vatche original) w/ the stones (of potentially lesser quality) is $2350 more than the stones I found - and the ones I found are a better cut. IMHO $2350 seems like a hefty price to pay for lesser quality stones (according to the dealer) and a designer name??? Is it worth it???
Help - I'm drowning in a sea of gems...

 

[Mara]

honestly, don't worry too much about matching the stones to the center or even to each other ....the stones you have there look fine to be matched up with your center. When all the stones are together all they do is sparkly madly anyway....and the center stone WILL be the main performer here, especially if its well cut which it sounds like it is.




I would stick with under 2.0 on the HCA and well-cut proportions, if you can get ideal scope images to show light return on the side 2...you will be fine.




People on here have gotten 3 stone rings before, some all with H&A for all 3 stones and I don't think anyone has complained that the small side stones outperform the larger stone. So I think you'd be fine as long as they are all in the general well-cut range.

Good luck!!

 

[fire&ice]

A friend is in the process of building a three stone ring (reset of her existing center stone). We checked the internet together quickly. BUT - is that truffle setting that accomodates a 1.5 center stone really over 6k? Or a figment of my imagination.

 

[Superidealist]

While giving credit, I think we should mention the original source for the images at adiamondisforever.com, a fun site for doing "what ifs".

----------------
On 3/10/2004 11:40:52 PM Mara wrote:

Recently...a few months back Valeria posted a cool Photoshopped image of a 3 stone with different side stones in terms of 'ratio' ...I will have to see if I can find it so you can see what it would look like.
----------------

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 1:07:03 PM fire&ice wrote:





A friend is in the process of building a three stone ring (reset of her existing center stone). We checked the internet together quickly. BUT - is that truffle setting that accomodates a 1.5 center stone really over 6k? Or a figment of my imagination.
----------------

I'm very interested in this Vatche setting too. I obtained two quotes from very highly regarded vendors on this forum and was quoted $1500 and $2400. Both quotes without stones. I'm really confused. Should a platinum setting really cost that much without stones?

 

[Griffin]

>I'm really confused. Should a platinum setting really cost that much without stones?


You aren't paying for the platinum, the setting, or even better quality.
You are paying for the stamp on the inside of the ring with a specific gentlemans name on it. Without that stamp they are less than half that price.

That stamp is the sole reason for its value to many. It is just an overpriced mounting to others. You'll have to decide that for yourself.

 

[icelovr]

Well Newb - I don't know what size center and sides you wanted - that makes a little difference - I would think. What was the difference between the $1500 setting and the $2400 one - had to be something...I found the setting in white gold, w/ 2-.60 stones for $4750.00. What size sides do you want?

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 8:36:02 PM icelovr wrote:





What was the difference between the $1500 setting and the $2400 one - had to be something..---------

As far as I know, nothing. That's why I'm confused. I asked for the same thing. A 1.25 center with 60 point (each)sides. No preset stones.

 

[Mara]

Maybe it's markup, who knows. Designer settings are expensive, plain and simple truth.

 

[icelovr]

What 2 vendors were they? - therein could lie your answer...

 

[Griffin]

If a tree fell in a forest and landed on a designer, would it make a sound that was inherently more valuable?

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 11:24:44 PM Griffin wrote:






If a tree fell in a forest and landed on a designer, would it make a sound that was inherently more valuable?
----------------

To the name-obsessed.......er, I mean name-conscious........yes. Infinitely so.

In fact, they'd be selling pieces of that tree on eBay for outrageous sums of money subsequently!

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 8:04:59 PM Griffin wrote:





You aren't paying for the platinum, the setting, or even better quality.
You are paying for the stamp on the inside of the ring with a specific gentlemans name on it. Without that stamp they are less than half that price.

That stamp is the sole reason for its value to many. It is just an overpriced mounting to others. You'll have to decide that for yourself.
----------------

Well after getting those quotes and verifying that diamonds are not included, I've decided that the stamp is not worth it to me. Just MHO. I'd rather put the money into the diamonds. I also learned that I could have one custom made for about $1200 that will look just like it if I wanted to. For me, that's a better way to go.

Actually, I never knew who Vatche was until a couple of weeks ago, when I started to look. We just liked the setting, but will tweak it more to our liking. I could care less whose stamp is on the ring (no offense to Vatche fans) as long as the alloy and workmanship are good.

 

[Griffin]

>Well after getting those quotes and verifying that diamonds are not included, I've decided that the stamp is not worth it to me. >Just MHO. I'd rather put the money into the diamonds. I also learned that I could have one custom made for about $1200 that >will look just like it if I wanted to. For me, that's a better way to go.


YAY! One more victory for Value, Quality, and Custom Goldsmiths.... May they never go extinct!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/11/2004 2:42:42 PM Superidealist wrote:

While giving credit, I think we should mention the original source for the images at adiamondisforever.com, a fun site for doing 'what ifs'.

----------------

Sure so. I hope I have mentioned to source for these. However, the pictures were surely 'worked on' for better or for worse.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
I could care less whose stamp is on the ring (no offense to Vatche fans) as long as the alloy and workmanship are good.
----------------

Vatche is a bird in the hand *known* product. I would be willing to pay a premium for that. That said, I don't think I would pay the keystone price Vatche is demanding these days. That truffle setting is *way* overpriced for what it is.

 

[Griffin]

>Vatche is a bird in the hand *known* product.

Yes, but what we *know* is that the guy has a private jet and sits on a throne, while not actually in any way having anything whatsoever to do with the ring. A production work bench jeweler makes that.

I personally would rather pay a more skilled bench jeweler just to make my ring and cut out the part about funding some guys private air force entirely....

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/12/2004 9:09:36 AM Griffin wrote:

>Vatche is a bird in the hand *known* product.

Yes, but what we *know* is that the guy has a private jet and sits on a throne, while not actually in any way having anything whatsoever to do with the ring. A production work bench jeweler makes that.

----------------

Don't care what dvatche does in his spare time. I know the product. The consistency is there. Period. Finding a skilled benchmen in platinum is not easy. And, then finding someone who will translate what *I* am wanting/saying into a concrete object is also not easy. It's a process worth going through *if* one wants something very unique or if the price is so skewed to the ulitimate value - which is the case w/ Vatche today. They are pricing themselves out of the market IMO.

I have worked with many artists. Some can be quite petulant with little regard to what the commissioner wants. F&I is admittingly playing the devil's advocate - but sometimes it's just not that easy.

 

[strmrdr]

fire&ice has a very good point.

While it is very easy for us to find someone skilled to make a top notch setting better than most "name" settings it isnt that easy for the average Joe or Jane to find one.

Localy there is one place that has become known for their custom work and they do great work problem is they think they should get "name prices" for their work.

So while I can agree with many of griffin's points sometimes its just not that easy when it comes down to actualy having something made.