My new ring
- Thread starter Sizzle
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,381
somehowcollide
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 830
Yikes, I can see the difference between the inspiration piece (looks almost seamless)and your end product. While still very pretty (who can complain with Princess cuts that size?) I don''t care for the gaps much. But it totally seems like the setting was made that way, the space between the side prongs and the middle prongs was quite prominent in the pictures you posted.
Here''s a thread where it looks like someone also tried to recreate a Vatche 3 stone trellis except in rounds, www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=14860 . You''ll notice that there isn''t as much of a gap between her prongs. Below I''ve pasted three pictures for comparison. The first is of your setting (without stones), the second of the psers inspired setting, and the third of the actual Vatche setting.
I''m certainly no expert, but my untrained eye seems to think that its a problem with a setting. One that I imagine won''t be easy to solve without starting over again... Anyway, I''m quite sorry it didn''t turn out the way you wanted, but I applaud your conviction to keep trying until you get it right!
Here''s a thread where it looks like someone also tried to recreate a Vatche 3 stone trellis except in rounds, www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=14860 . You''ll notice that there isn''t as much of a gap between her prongs. Below I''ve pasted three pictures for comparison. The first is of your setting (without stones), the second of the psers inspired setting, and the third of the actual Vatche setting.
I''m certainly no expert, but my untrained eye seems to think that its a problem with a setting. One that I imagine won''t be easy to solve without starting over again... Anyway, I''m quite sorry it didn''t turn out the way you wanted, but I applaud your conviction to keep trying until you get it right!
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
That would be patently unfair, it was clear it would look like this in the earlier pictures that were posted.
I fear that our supplicant will need to have a new ring made to get the look that he wants. I know that is not the answer that he is looking for, but I fear that is the answer that is true.
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Wink
Yes, there are indeed two threads addressing this issue, and that''s rather confusing. WHen I e-mailed with pictures and the complaint. Juan replied with the following
"If I make your ring with strong prongs because it will hold a diamond and the center stone is not so low set by force you will have a gap in the sides, if you want to have a flat and lower set ring without this gap I can make you a new ring free of cost but I need to make it flat with a much lower set center stone and with thinner prongs like in the picture you sent me BUT this is under your own risk in case you loose a diamond with this prongs because this will be very fragile.
What you can do is to tell youe setter to set the two side stones closer to the center stone by bending the prongs toward de center setting and this will close the gap a lot but not totally.
If you want a ring identical to the one you just sent me I can do it no problem but I will need the ring back to melt it and make a new ring."
I am very confused by this because I have seen this style of ring in person done by several different jewelers, as well as the Vatche version and I have NEVER been told this! I don''t even understand why jeweler would agree to make a product that they would label "fragile"... am I missing something?
Its great to make an offer to redo something, but to 1) say it would be fragine and inferior and 2) not return any e-mails for 11 days now is unacceptable.
Yes, there are indeed two threads addressing this issue, and that''s rather confusing. WHen I e-mailed with pictures and the complaint. Juan replied with the following
"If I make your ring with strong prongs because it will hold a diamond and the center stone is not so low set by force you will have a gap in the sides, if you want to have a flat and lower set ring without this gap I can make you a new ring free of cost but I need to make it flat with a much lower set center stone and with thinner prongs like in the picture you sent me BUT this is under your own risk in case you loose a diamond with this prongs because this will be very fragile.
What you can do is to tell youe setter to set the two side stones closer to the center stone by bending the prongs toward de center setting and this will close the gap a lot but not totally.
If you want a ring identical to the one you just sent me I can do it no problem but I will need the ring back to melt it and make a new ring."
I am very confused by this because I have seen this style of ring in person done by several different jewelers, as well as the Vatche version and I have NEVER been told this! I don''t even understand why jeweler would agree to make a product that they would label "fragile"... am I missing something?
Its great to make an offer to redo something, but to 1) say it would be fragine and inferior and 2) not return any e-mails for 11 days now is unacceptable.
The setting looks very lovely and well made, except for the gap between stones, which I agree is substantial and bothersome. I think you have pretty much answered your own questions here - it is too late to dispute credit card charges, there is no refund on custom work, you are not happy with the ring as is, it is not the setter''s fault, you don''t have the money to just walk away and start over. Juan has said he would remake the ring, I think you should attempt to talk him up on that presuming he doesn''t scare you off too bad by not replying. Just curious here, what is the gist of those emails you sent? And did you have a local jeweler here to coordinate with or did you just communicate via email with Juan? If he runs a small shop and something came up, it is unfortunate but not unforgivable that he hasn''t emailed back.
Also, I think that what Juan is saying is that if you want the stones set high and safely, there will be a larger gap between the stones than if they are set low. Did you specifically ask for high-set stones? My take would be to send the ring back, including the stones if you trust such shipment, and ask him to remake it however he can such that the there is much less gap and the stones are set safely as possible. Lower would be OK with me, as it is a somewhat high trellis. Since his first attempt is beautiful if imperfect, and he has a good rep, maybe this can be made right.
Also, I think that what Juan is saying is that if you want the stones set high and safely, there will be a larger gap between the stones than if they are set low. Did you specifically ask for high-set stones? My take would be to send the ring back, including the stones if you trust such shipment, and ask him to remake it however he can such that the there is much less gap and the stones are set safely as possible. Lower would be OK with me, as it is a somewhat high trellis. Since his first attempt is beautiful if imperfect, and he has a good rep, maybe this can be made right.
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Wink, this was just the opinion of a consumer, based on the original photo without any diamonds set in it, and the info that someone unfamiliar with the setting or maker of it set the diamonds - it was simply a hypothesis, not an accusation of any sort.
Seeing the new photos Sizzle has provided, I absolutely agree that this is an inherent fault of the setting and that some gaps would have been unavoidable no matter who set it.
Apologies as didn''t mean any offense
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Sizzle, in light of the new photos you have posted that show the gaps more pronounced, I can see what you''re upset about for sure.
I have said this in your other thread, but I also agree that Juan not replying is kind of unprofessional at this point, imho. Hopefully you can reach an agreement and sooner rather than later. Did you find time to phone him instead of email?
Cara,
I have been trying to make every attempt to communicate with Juan and am at this point basically just venting here. I do NOT trust sending my diamonds to Mexico, and he has actually stated that he would prefer NOT to work with sending diamonds internationally as there is an additional hassle with shipping. I actually sent him the photo of the truffle piece as my "inspiration" and didn''t ask for the stones to be set high or low, I just wanted a ring that looked like that trellis. I didn''t even realize right off that it was a Vatche, but when I did, I sent that photo as well. my ONLY concern is his statement that he would set them with thin "unsecure" prongs "at my own risk" with a redo. The rings I have seen in person were not made with flimsy or thin prongs. I just noted that the prongs of the sides were placed in between those of the center, as opposed to right next to them. I sent additional photos to show Juan was I was talking about, and confirming that I want the redo. I then asked which address he wanted me to send the ring back to and for a time frame I could expect my new ring back. When I got no response, I forwarded my response and asked if he had received the original e-mail. A couple of days later I fowarded it again and asked if he could send confirmation of receipt. Once again, I got NOTHING. I am TRYING to be patient, but I want this over with and my bling on my hand.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Date: 5/25/2008 10:48:28 PM
Author: arjunajane
Wink, this was just the opinion of a consumer, based on the original photo without any diamonds set in it, and the info that someone unfamiliar with the setting or maker of it set the diamonds - it was simply a hypothesis, not an accusation of any sort.
Seeing the new photos Sizzle has provided, I absolutely agree that this is an inherent fault of the setting and that some gaps would have been unavoidable no matter who set it.
Apologies as didn''t mean any offense
And none was taken, sorry I did not make that more clear in my response. I was working hard and took a Pricescope break. I know you well enough to know that was a question as your ? mark clearly showed. I gave a quick answer rather than explaining my full feelings.
My apologies to you for not being more clear that I was not offended, nor was I meaning to attack you.
Wink
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
drats - the "no tone available over the internet" disease strikes again lol!Date: 5/25/2008 11:31:58 PM
Author: Wink
Date: 5/25/2008 10:48:28 PM
Author: arjunajane
Wink, this was just the opinion of a consumer, based on the original photo without any diamonds set in it, and the info that someone unfamiliar with the setting or maker of it set the diamonds - it was simply a hypothesis, not an accusation of any sort.
Seeing the new photos Sizzle has provided, I absolutely agree that this is an inherent fault of the setting and that some gaps would have been unavoidable no matter who set it.
Apologies as didn''t mean any offense
And none was taken, sorry I did not make that more clear in my response. I was working hard and took a Pricescope break. I know you well enough to know that was a question as your ? mark clearly showed. I gave a quick answer rather than explaining my full feelings.
My apologies to you for not being more clear that I was not offended, nor was I meaning to attack you.
Wink
not a prob
- Status
How Are Diamonds Made? Natural vs Lab-Created Explained
How Are Diamonds Made? Natural vs Lab-Created Explained - 08/05
Top Wedding Ring Brands for Every Style and Budget
Top Wedding Ring Brands for Every Style and Budget - 08/05
Where to Buy Lab Grown Diamonds: Best Places Compared
Where to Buy Lab Grown Diamonds: Best Places Compared - 08/05
300x240.png)