Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigree?

[Circe]

The incredibly patient people who chimed in on my never-ending WWPS do thread re: whether to reset, refurbish, or leave well enough alone might finally get some closure!

I visited Leigh Jay Nacht on Friday to get another opinion on swapping out the marquise sidestones and get my sapphire filigree ring fixed. They fixed the wonky head on the sapphire ring, which now looks AMAZEBALLS (as the kids are saying), and the lovely lady with whom I was dealing, Winona, completely redeemed the sidestones for me when she pointed out that they were period authentic marquise with open culets and one wouldn't want to mess around with that sort of thing. But she ALSO showed me one of the most impressive settings I've ever seen - a filigree ring from the Edwardian period with an octagonal head. It is astonishingly fine work - I genuinely don't think I've ever seen better, and I eyeball a lot of jewelry.

I think I'm in love.

The only thing(s) holding me back are:

A) The setting originally held a slightly smaller stone. They can rework it to fit my stone ... but it makes me a little nervous, mostly because I've been spoiled by my fishtail prongs, which make everything look HUGE. If you check out the comparison shot below, you'll see that my 8.8 stone in the current setting looks larger than the 9mm cz we popped onto the setting for comparative purposes.

B) This will probably sound sort of doofy since I've been gravitating heavily towards vintage-y looks, but I'd just started discussing a modern wirework design when I stumbled across this, and I'd just seen a cool chunky bezel holding an OEC, and a little teeny part of me is sort of like, "If you're resetting primarily to differentiate this from your e-ring, shouldn't you REALLY differentiate it?"

I love my husband, but he is no help on this: he just smiles beautifically and says, "Whatever makes you happy, dear." So ... HELP! What do you guys think? Two questions.

1) Do you see a noticeable difference in size between my current setting and the one I'm considering? And, either way ... do you think it's worth trading a little real estate for that gorgeous side view?

2) Does that look less engagement-y and more RHRingy? Pics below ... first of my current setting, and then of the top contender.

 

[Circe]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

And the new option ... a bunch of iPhone pics, and one vender shot to display the amazing delicacy of the profile ....

 

[Mike R]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

1) Do you see a noticeable difference in size between my current setting and the one I'm considering? And, either way ... do you think it's worth trading a little real estate for that gorgeous side view?

2) Does that look less engagement-y and more RHRingy? Pics below ... first of my current setting, and then of the top contender.

1) I think in the new setting your diamond will look a little smaller, but because the new ring has a finer band more importance is placed on the diamond, making it visually stand out more without the distraction of a wider diamond set band and heavy prongs.
In the new setting your diamond will be the star of the show.

2) To me personally, I think they both look e'ring-y, but if you love it you should go for it no mater what others think.

Can I ask how often the new ring will be worn if you do go for it? Old delicate rings like this need special/gentle care and do not enjoy being worn every day in the same way that a classic car will not be a reliable daily highway cruser, but they sure are great fun when you take it out on the weekends.

 

[distracts]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

What sapphire ring? I can't find the thread?

While I LOVE the setting the diamond is in currently, having gone back and looked at pictures of your e-ring, it does look pretty much exactly like it and needs to be changed. I don't think the filigree rings look less "engagementy" though - I think maybe you just think that because the original setting looks exactly like your e-ring! But I don't care if my RHRs look engagementy and imo you shouldn't be bothered by it either. I like the filigree setting quite a bit - octagonal bezels are super gorgeous. But my opinion doesn't matter - you say you're in love with it, and if you are, then it's the one you should get.

 

[elliemay]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Oh, Circe! I don't think I've seen your anniversary ring before -- it's beautiful!

I do prefer the LJN setting, but that's because I'm not a huge fan of the "box" type settings. I do like fishtail prongs, but I like really pronounced fishtail prongs that look prongy rather than boxy, if that makes any sense (in fact, I think I have your e-ring setting saved as an example of perfect fishtail prongs to show my jeweller when I have my RHR made!).

I agree with Mike R -- the LJN setting really makes the diamond pop. It's so pretty! My diamond is half the weight of yours, and there is very much something about the delicacy of the LJN band that really makes the stone the star of the show.

My ring was with the jeweller's for a few days last week (been getting weird about the prongs lately and wanted them checked ) and I just got it back yesterday and I haven't stopped looking at it. I'd forgotten how pretty it was and fell in love with LJN's work all over again. I can't recommend them enough and am jealous that you got to meet Winona in person -- she was incredibly helpful via emails and on the phone, so I can only imagine how great it was to work with her in person!

 

[Mayk]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Pretty... I love their web-site. The have some lovely replicas!

 

[Enerchi]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Both are beautiful rings that you've chosen Circe, the one you have and the setting you like above.

I think the 8.8mm looks larger in the fishtail because you have the prongs 'squaring' it off to appear larger. That said, the new/old LJN setting has more presence to it and my eye, while enjoying the detail of the filigree work, is now drawn totally to the diamond, so in that sense - it does make the diamond pop, as MikeR said above.

I can see where your head is at - change for the sake of change or change to make a statement. The LJN is your style that you are comfortable with so maybe going out of your zone to a wire wrapped/bezel... may sound cool now and give that 'wow/different' factor, but would you love it as much as this style, in another few months/years???

I love the filigree work on this new/old setting!!! Good luck with your choice...

 

[yennyfire]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Tough call. I personally prefer the LJN setting because it's different from your ering (not to mention gorgeous!!). That said though, it might bother me if the stone looked smaller after re-setting.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Both are beautiful, but I'll have to agree with Mike that they both look like e-rings to me. I don't see that changing to the new one will help that perception at all. I think you'd need a totally different setting with more going on with the sides or halo or something to make it not look like an engagement ring (if you want it to be more like a right hand ring). I don't have time to go search for examples at the moment, but here are some examples of old cuts in rings that do not look as much like e-rings to me:

 

[MissGotRocks]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Both are beautiful, but I'll have to agree with Mike that they both look like e-rings to me. I don't see that changing to the new one will help that perception at all. I think you'd need a totally different setting with more going on with the sides or halo or something to make it not look like an engagement ring (if you want it to be more like a right hand ring). I don't have time to go search for examples at the moment, but here are some examples of old cuts in rings that do not look as much like e-rings to me:

I have to say that I totally agree with this. They both do look like erings to me and I don't think you'd have enough of a change in terms of looks to warrant that. While the setting would make your stone the star, it's hard to get away from that ering look. I like the first one here that DS has posted - definitely has some good detail and when compared with your ering, wouldn't look like an ering at all!

 

[Circe]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

1) I think in the new setting your diamond will look a little smaller, but because the new ring has a finer band more importance is placed on the diamond, making it visually stand out more without the distraction of a wider diamond set band and heavy prongs.
In the new setting your diamond will be the star of the show.

2) To me personally, I think they both look e'ring-y, but if you love it you should go for it no mater what others think.

Can I ask how often the new ring will be worn if you do go for it? Old delicate rings like this need special/gentle care and do not enjoy being worn every day in the same way that a classic car will not be a reliable daily highway cruser, but they sure are great fun when you take it out on the weekends.

That's food for thought, Mike - I'd been planning to wear it every day, more or less the same way I wear my engagement ring (possibly alternating daily, max). Do you think it looks too fragile for that sort of use? In person, it looked like it was in perfect shape with more or less no wear - I'm hoping if it made it 100 years already, it could stand another 40 or so, but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me. Hm ....

What sapphire ring? I can't find the thread?

While I LOVE the setting the diamond is in currently, having gone back and looked at pictures of your e-ring, it does look pretty much exactly like it and needs to be changed. I don't think the filigree rings look less "engagementy" though - I think maybe you just think that because the original setting looks exactly like your e-ring! But I don't care if my RHRs look engagementy and imo you shouldn't be bothered by it either. I like the filigree setting quite a bit - octagonal bezels are super gorgeous. But my opinion doesn't matter - you say you're in love with it, and if you are, then it's the one you should get.

I haven't posted it yet! But soon, soon.

The problem for me is that most RHRs appear to be defined by halos and/or sidestones, and I feel like that's too much on my stubby little paw ... but that doesn't leave me with too many options. I do love how this looks - now, as per Mike's comment above, I need to figure out if, a) the setting might be sturdy enough for daily wear, and, b) if it's not, if I could stand to buy a thing I loved just to dole it out. I have an ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY, I am telling you.

Oh, Circe! I don't think I've seen your anniversary ring before -- it's beautiful!

I do prefer the LJN setting, but that's because I'm not a huge fan of the "box" type settings. I do like fishtail prongs, but I like really pronounced fishtail prongs that look prongy rather than boxy, if that makes any sense (in fact, I think I have your e-ring setting saved as an example of perfect fishtail prongs to show my jeweller when I have my RHR made!).

I agree with Mike R -- the LJN setting really makes the diamond pop. It's so pretty! My diamond is half the weight of yours, and there is very much something about the delicacy of the LJN band that really makes the stone the star of the show.

My ring was with the jeweller's for a few days last week (been getting weird about the prongs lately and wanted them checked ) and I just got it back yesterday and I haven't stopped looking at it. I'd forgotten how pretty it was and fell in love with LJN's work all over again. I can't recommend them enough and am jealous that you got to meet Winona in person -- she was incredibly helpful via emails and on the phone, so I can only imagine how great it was to work with her in person!

Thanks, Ellie, on all counts! It's a mutual admiration society, because I sure do love your ring, too - it was actually your ring that put LJN back on my radar to check with.

I'm actually a big fan of both kinds of fishtail prongs, AND of octagonal settings, and for that matter, hexagonal settings and bezels: I think I'm basically just kind of a nut for Edwardiana. I just want to be sure it's the right kind of a piece for what I have in mind (i.e., different enough from my e-ring, sturdy enough for daily wear). So ... mayhap I'll need to talk to Winona again and get her opinion. She's fantastic to work with - very genuine, very intuitive about what a customer is looking for, and a blast to chat with! Regardless of what happens with this setting, they've moved to the top of my list of vendors to visit for antique-y projects.

Pretty... I love their web-site. The have some lovely replicas!

Mayk - Thank you, and, I know, right? They're even prettier in person!

Both are beautiful rings that you've chosen Circe, the one you have and the setting you like above.

I think the 8.8mm looks larger in the fishtail because you have the prongs 'squaring' it off to appear larger. That said, the new/old LJN setting has more presence to it and my eye, while enjoying the detail of the filigree work, is now drawn totally to the diamond, so in that sense - it does make the diamond pop, as MikeR said above.

I can see where your head is at - change for the sake of change or change to make a statement. The LJN is your style that you are comfortable with so maybe going out of your zone to a wire wrapped/bezel... may sound cool now and give that 'wow/different' factor, but would you love it as much as this style, in another few months/years???

I love the filigree work on this new/old setting!!! Good luck with your choice...

Enerchi, you put your finger on it dead square (if you'll pardon the expression). I feel like fishtail prongs make a round like it could be a square shape of a larger carat weight, in a weird way, when they're done right. Octagon and hexagon settings have something of that going on in terms of adding visual weight, but without creating the full-on illusion - you can tell there's some metal in there somewhere, simply because stones aren't cut in those shapes.

But I think the question is a very good one ... and I do think this style is a keeper, if the specific setting is strong enough to stand up to how I use my hands day-in and day-out. I'm not planning on wearing it to silversmith, or anything, but I do have a tendency to wear my jewelry almost all the time. I think I'd remember to take it off to sleep and go to the gym and the like, but beyond that ... hm. Jewelry that needs to be babied has never quite seemed worth it to me, somehow - why appreciate it when you can't enjoy it, if you know what I mean?

BTW - I've been meaning to mention for a while how much I appreciate your posts. I feel like a lot of the time when I click on threads, be they serious or light-hearted, there you are, offering thoughtful and carefully considered advice! We need more posters like you, so I'm going to appreciate and enjoy your contributions!

Tough call. I personally prefer the LJN setting because it's different from your ering (not to mention gorgeous!!). That said though, it might bother me if the stone looked smaller after re-setting.

Heheheh - I'm glad I'm not alone! I was afraid somebody was going to check my IP address, come to my address, and physically roll their eyes at me over that one when the emoticon wouldn't do. I know it's silly to worry about losing the illusion of a mm or so, but ... you get used to these things! I feel like it's a variant on all of those "quality or quantity?" threads. Philosophically, I've always believed in both! I do wonder if they can bulk it up from the top a bit somehow ....

Both are beautiful, but I'll have to agree with Mike that they both look like e-rings to me. I don't see that changing to the new one will help that perception at all. I think you'd need a totally different setting with more going on with the sides or halo or something to make it not look like an engagement ring (if you want it to be more like a right hand ring). I don't have time to go search for examples at the moment, but here are some examples of old cuts in rings that do not look as much like e-rings to me:

Hey, those are great examples - thank you for posting those! The middle one is from ERD's Royal T collection, right? LOVE them. None of the designs is quite right for what I'm looking for, but the workmanship looks scrumptious - I have to admit, if I don't get this setting, I'm more than half-tempted to contact them to see what they could do in terms of a setting with less ... mass. 'Cause, hear me out on this - I have developed a Golden Rule for rings, at least insofar as comes to my own hands.

My theory is that the body of a ring - center stone alone in a solitaire or center-stone + halo in a fancier style (does not apply to three stone or more rings, obvs) - should be no wider than the bed of the fingernail. Whenever I've tried on bigger rings, they've just made me look like I have little mole-paws instead of proper human hands. So, for this stone, I feel like while I want something that's not too e-ring-y looking, it still needs to be a single stone in a bulkier head, or a single stone in a thick band - horizontal is good, but vertical is bad, basically. Does that make sense?

Both are beautiful, but I'll have to agree with Mike that they both look like e-rings to me. I don't see that changing to the new one will help that perception at all. I think you'd need a totally different setting with more going on with the sides or halo or something to make it not look like an engagement ring (if you want it to be more like a right hand ring). I don't have time to go search for examples at the moment, but here are some examples of old cuts in rings that do not look as much like e-rings to me:

I have to say that I totally agree with this. They both do look like erings to me and I don't think you'd have enough of a change in terms of looks to warrant that. While the setting would make your stone the star, it's hard to get away from that ering look. I like the first one here that DS has posted - definitely has some good detail and when compared with your ering, wouldn't look like an ering at all!

Dang! Point taken, and it's something I'll keep in mind - I don't suppose anybody reading has styles to recommend that are horizontal and not vertical, do they?

 

[Mike R]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

1) I think in the new setting your diamond will look a little smaller, but because the new ring has a finer band more importance is placed on the diamond, making it visually stand out more without the distraction of a wider diamond set band and heavy prongs.
In the new setting your diamond will be the star of the show.

2) To me personally, I think they both look e'ring-y, but if you love it you should go for it no mater what others think.

Can I ask how often the new ring will be worn if you do go for it? Old delicate rings like this need special/gentle care and do not enjoy being worn every day in the same way that a classic car will not be a reliable daily highway cruser, but they sure are great fun when you take it out on the weekends.

That's food for thought, Mike - I'd been planning to wear it every day, more or less the same way I wear my engagement ring (possibly alternating daily, max). Do you think it looks too fragile for that sort of use? In person, it looked like it was in perfect shape with more or less no wear - I'm hoping if it made it 100 years already, it could stand another 40 or so, but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me. Hm ...

That does sound optimistic, keep in mind that a hundred years ago a ring like this would have been a real luxury, worn occasionally in the evening, nothing like how jewellery is worn today. We expect a lot from todays jewellery.
Again a car will need very little maintanence in its first 10 years but in the next 10 years will possibly need a lot of work to keep it on the road.

Repairs and damage speed up as time goes along, something that has lasted 100 years might have another 100 years left in it but chances are it only has a small fraction of that time left in it and maintanence will need to be done more regulary in those remaining years.

From the pictures it looks fine (although very delicate) but its hard to tell, let the seller know how you expect to wear the ring and ask their opinion if it's fit for the intended purpose. (get the answer in writing)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

I've been looking but I don't know how to make it horizontal without adding side stones or maybe a split shank.

 

[Circe]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

I've been looking but I don't know how to make it horizontal without adding side stones or maybe a split shank.

S'okay, DS - I really appreciate your looking! I think part of the problem is that the definition of "e-ring" has expanded considerably over the course of the last 15 years or so - since now halos and three-stones are presumed to be e-rings unless definitely stated otherwise, almost any ring with a significantly larger center is presumed to be an e-ring. All fish live in water, etc.

I am guessing that if I went either strictly horizontal or strictly vertical, I could make it look non e-ring-y without overwhelming my finger ... the problem is that with the former, I run the risk of the 9 mm shank making it look like a man's ring (which, no offense to men, is not my style - I have a few rings like that which my dad gave to me, and I just never wear them). Alternately, I could try looking for something like this, I guess ... would have to go and try some on, as I've no idea how they would look on me.

All that said, I DO still very much like the octagon setting, but I need to talk to the dealer to ask what kind of wear it can stand up to!

 

[Enerchi]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Mornin' Circe!

BTW - I've been meaning to mention for a while how much I appreciate your posts. I feel like a lot of the time when I click on threads, be they serious or light-hearted, there you are, offering thoughtful and carefully considered advice! We need more posters like you, so I'm going to appreciate and enjoy your contributions!

Thank you for your sweet encouragement regarding my posts - made me feel all warm and fuzzy that you consider me a good poster!

I was cruising newyorkestatejewelry.com and found a few that intrigued me when I was thinking of your reset. May not be the right designs for you, but I was going with 'non-ering' looks and you liked the square/octagon. Maybe something here could be inspirational for you? These are the complete ring, so not sure how you'd get the setting created, if there is anything here that appeals.

http://www.newyorkestatejewelry.com/Rings/Art%20Deco%200.82ct%20Diamond%20Sapphire%20Platinum%20%20Ring/16371/1/item

http://www.newyorkestatejewelry.com/Rings/Art%20Deco%201.50ct%20Diamond%20Sapphire%20Platinum%20Ring/16443/1/item (gee... you'll need 2 more diamonds... aw.... how sad! )

http://www.newyorkestatejewelry.com/Rings/Art%20Deco%20Style%201.32ct%20Old%20Mine%20Diamond%20Platinum%20Engagement%20Ring/14912/1/item (too close to what you already have??)

http://www.newyorkestatejewelry.com/Rings/Art%20Deco%201.38ct%20Old%20European%20Diamond%20&%20Sapphire%20Platinum%20Engagement%20Ring/14609/1/item (looks solid as Mike was suggesting)

http://www.newyorkestatejewelry.com/Rings/Edwardian%201.43ct%20Diamond%2014k%20White%20Gold%20Ring/6403/1/item (octagon)

And this is out of your comfort zone, but you did mention more modern /bezel, at one point.... just throwin' it in the mix to spark the juices!!!
http://www.newyorkestatejewelry.com/Rings/0.96ct%20Diamond%20Platinum%20Ring/10880/1/item#

 

[Circe]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Update! So I checked with Winona, who assured me that the ring should be okay for daily wear, with the caveat that I wouldn't want to wear it next to a band for fear of it eating away at the delicate metalwork - fair enough! - and that I'd want to exercise reasonable caution (my examples were not while going to the gym, performing manual labor, etc., taking it off to sleep). So now the only remaining concern is aesthetic!

I am thinking the most logical thing for me to do might be to simply go down in person again and see how it looks worn opposite from my e-ring. I didn't realize that the alternately handed fishtail prongs would bug me until I saw them large as life and twice as vivid ... so perhaps all the navel-gazing should take a backseat to some lived experience.

Enerchi, those are a very cool selection! Israel Rose has some gorgeous things. I've spent the last couple of days scanning them and 1stDibs and Lang kind of obsessively, and I haven't seen anything that I like as much in terms of sheer workmanship, though ... which may be the kicker for me. There's a lot of good design in the world, but there are relatively few things that make me say, "Well-played, anonymous jeweler, WELL PLAYED" in terms of the craftsmanship. I think the last one that had that effect in person was in a museum display.

I think I might need to start another thread (or two), though, because there are two questions that keep bouncing around on the single track that is my mind: first, I'd like to see other people's examples of REALLY OUTSTANDING craftsmanship, just to get a baseline sense of general standards, and second ... I'd like to know how people convince themselves to splurge! Don't get me wrong, this ring is worth what they're asking for it, but I think it might be literally the first piece of jewelry I've ever thought about buying at market value because I loved it so, as opposed to my usual technique of hunting down a rock-bottom bargain ....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Really outstanding craftsmanship is going to usually cost, and I think it is worth it. I've always wanted a Van Craeynest ring, because I have seen a few and they are outstanding. That's just one example, but if you find something you really love, then I think it is worth it in the long run. I recently experienced that in trying to find blue sapphires, and I ended up having to raise my budget because I just preferred the better quality stones.

 

[Mike R]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Thats great news that the durability of the ring checked out ok.

If you can afford it you should treat yourself to it, I'm sure you deserve it and we are only here for a short while.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

It sounds like you have decided, but I thought of this ring that belongs to athenaworth that I think is pretty and works for a RHR:

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Both are beautiful, but I'll have to agree with Mike that they both look like e-rings to me. I don't see that changing to the new one will help that perception at all. I think you'd need a totally different setting with more going on with the sides or halo or something to make it not look like an engagement ring (if you want it to be more like a right hand ring). I don't have time to go search for examples at the moment, but here are some examples of old cuts in rings that do not look as much like e-rings to me:

I have to say that I totally agree with this. They both do look like erings to me and I don't think you'd have enough of a change in terms of looks to warrant that. While the setting would make your stone the star, it's hard to get away from that ering look. I like the first one here that DS has posted - definitely has some good detail and when compared with your ering, wouldn't look like an ering at all!

I agree as well. It's GORGEOUS but it is engagement ringy. Circe I'd be happy to help you with a non-engagement ring design for your lovely stone. I think you need sidestones lady.

Remember the ring you posted for me with the bezel? What about that? I never did get it done for myself.

 

[Circe]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

Both are beautiful, but I'll have to agree with Mike that they both look like e-rings to me. I don't see that changing to the new one will help that perception at all. I think you'd need a totally different setting with more going on with the sides or halo or something to make it not look like an engagement ring (if you want it to be more like a right hand ring). I don't have time to go search for examples at the moment, but here are some examples of old cuts in rings that do not look as much like e-rings to me:

I have to say that I totally agree with this. They both do look like erings to me and I don't think you'd have enough of a change in terms of looks to warrant that. While the setting would make your stone the star, it's hard to get away from that ering look. I like the first one here that DS has posted - definitely has some good detail and when compared with your ering, wouldn't look like an ering at all!

I agree as well. It's GORGEOUS but it is engagement ringy. Circe I'd be happy to help you with a non-engagement ring design for your lovely stone. I think you need sidestones lady.

Remember the ring you posted for me with the bezel? What about that? I never did get it done for myself.

Heheheh - hey, I'm happy to entertain other notions! The process of imagining it in 3D is part of the fun! The problem for me NOW, I think, would be that I haven't seen any modern craftsmen whose work lives up to this. So I guess it'd be The Further Adventures of Circe, continuing to look for a vintage piece, only less engagement-y? Hm.

I actually was wishing PS had a PM function so I could get in touch with you the other day - I FOUND THE PLACE THAT MAKES THAT SETTING! Seriously, the exact one! It's a replica, and the craftsmanship is very good. But the side view is plain, and apparently can't be customized ... which takes away from it for me, a little. They quoted me 2.5K, which seems in line with other good replica pricing.

That said, have at it! Make me suggestions! ooo, with links and pics ....

 

[Circe]

Re: Might have found the reset for my 2.5 - Edwardian filigr

P.S. - Just to make things more fun, my RL friends are no help: one prefers the current setting, one prefers the Edwardian octagon. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.