OK, since we''re exploring all options... let''s talk HEADS, please!

[Lynn B]

I have decided on this fishtail pave style for my re-set. Although this ring shown is in a platinum satin finish, I will request a shiny, polished finish. My center stone is a 2.36 RB. The finished width of the new rings (e-ring and matching w-ring) will be 2.0 - 2.1 mm each.

I am debating head options. I''m fussy about the head that holds my center stone, and I want something really beautiful. Probably 4 prong, because I want the rings to be able to sit flush.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Thank you very much!

Lynn

 

[Lynn B]

This is a photo of the Michael B ring which I think is a very similar look. I would love a detailed photo or two of the MB head(s), but I haven''t been very successful in finding one. Does anyone have one?

 

[Lynn B]

Also, I have been discussing with WF the differences between a peg head and a more integrated head. But I guess the problem with the more integrated style head goes back to the "sitting flush" issue.

Dilemmas, dilemmas!!!

 

[Mara]

Okay...here''s a thought...

I wish that I could find that side view of the Michael B...

Because it is possible to do a non peg-head and have it integrated into the band and still have it sit flush.

Also that Ritani that I saw at BBB has the same setup. Basically the head starts small in the band, aka it comes up from the band at the same width as the band itself, and then it sculpts OUTWARDS once it reaches a certain point so that it stays small for about what 2mm up from the bottom, then ''flares'' outwards into the 4 or 6 prong head or whatever that you want.

I LOVE that idea. You know I am not a fan of the peg thing, it is really hard to make it look integrated or fluid. I would run that by WF. If you can get into a BBB or something to see the Ritani, it would be great. Or maybe someone from WF can go on a research trip to see for themselves.

Slammie''s set is flush and her head is the 4 prong basket...that''s another thought.

But gotta say girl I am just loving the 6 prong on my new stone....didn''t jcrow''s ring have the head that was integrated into the band and she only had a tiny gap between her e-ring and w-ring?

Anyway...just some thoughts....but I''d really go check out that MB solitaire head or the Ritani one that I am in love with...both of those sat 99% flush with my w-ring and I''m sure they could be custom made to sit 100% flush if everyone was on the same page.

 

[Mara]

Okay...here''s a thought...

I wish that I could find that side view of the Michael B...

Because it is possible to do a non peg-head and have it integrated into the band and still have it sit flush.

Also that Ritani that I saw at BBB has the same setup. Basically the head starts small in the band, aka it comes up from the band at the same width as the band itself, and then it sculpts OUTWARDS once it reaches a certain point so that it stays small for about what 2mm up from the bottom, then ''flares'' outwards into the 4 or 6 prong head or whatever that you want.

I LOVE that idea. You know I am not a fan of the peg thing, it is really hard to make it look integrated or fluid. I would run that by WF. If you can get into a BBB or something to see the Ritani, it would be great. Or maybe someone from WF can go on a research trip to see for themselves.

Slammie''s set is flush and her head is the 4 prong basket...that''s another thought.

But gotta say girl I am just loving the 6 prong on my new stone....didn''t jcrow''s ring have the head that was integrated into the band and she only had a tiny gap between her e-ring and w-ring?

Anyway...just some thoughts....but I''d really go check out that MB solitaire head or the Ritani one that I am in love with...both of those sat 99% flush with my w-ring and I''m sure they could be custom made to sit 100% flush if everyone was on the same page.

 

[Kaleigh]

I love the idea of having someone from WF going out and investigating those heads by Michael B and Ritani. I think they are beautiful and somehow they just get it, hands down!! . The head of a ring gets overlooked IMHO. These designers pay attention to that, and rightly so. I''m all about the details so asking for them to take an investigative look would be not only helpful to you but to the many of us that want the heads of our rings to be just as pretty as the shanks!! Is there a Bailey Banks and Biddle near WF?? I was going to say BBB, but sadly that has a whole new meaning now. I think it''s worth the extra effort because those heads are soooo fluid and pretty and really make the piece.

 

[diamondfan]

I am sure what you choose will be great. Like you say, dilemas...but I am sure the finished product will be amazing!

 

[mrssalvo]

I personally love the sideview of slammie''s setting. I love a basket setting and they could make it w/out the pave on the basket.

As for the side view of the Michael B. I think Ivanadiamond has that ring. Maybe she''ll chime in and can post a sideview picture. I checked and there''s no in her thread.

I think any WF employee would love to take a business trip to a local Bailey, Banks and Biddle for you

 

[eks6426]

I don''t have that exact Michael B ring, but one that is similar. I believe all his heads are pretty much the same. Here''s a side-view of mine. I have a radiant so I know it would be different for a round.

My e-ring does sit completely flush with my w-ring. The head does just what Mara described--start out small for a couple of mm then flares out.

 

[Mara]

ID that''s totally the idea!!!

Lynn, I would think you can design the prongs to be thinner or put 6 or whatever, but that picture shows how it starts skinny in the band then flares out. I love it and from the side it''s beautiful and flares out to just over whatever the w-ring height is. Gotta love it!!!

 

[Lynn B]

ID and Mara,

Thank you! Yes, those photos do show me what Mara was trying explain.

A few questions... what is the metal showing in between the prong shafts (at the base of the ring)? Just for decoration?

And secondly... does doing this style of head mean the diamond sits up much higher than would otherwise be necessary? Because one of my *things* is that I want the center diamond to be set as low as possible, and I also really want it to really "fill out" the head. (In other words, I don''t want empty space between the sides of the pav and the prongs, or under the culet.)

Can I have all this and still have the rings sit flush or VEEERRRRRY close?!!

Is it possible???! Or do I want to have my cake and eat it, too?!!

 

[mrssalvo]

ana did this a while back and I saved it. it can show a bit how the MB prongs are are the ring you posted.

 

[jcrow]

thanks for the mention mara. i agree about going 6 prong. i just think there is something royal about it if that makes sense. i think mine is peg set. i do think though, there might be a better option out there for a 6 prong that sits completely flush.

 

[Lynn B]

Thank you, Mrs. S! I have put out an APB for more photos of Ivanadiamond''s ring!

Meanwhile, I am hoping that someone more knowledgable/experienced than I can answer the questions I posted above. I really need to know if I can have *everything* I want in one head!!!

Thanks, all!

Lynn

 

[Mara]

Lynn, ask John.

Honestly, I don''t know about the whole low as possible but sitting flush thing, depends I think on your definition of low.

You saw the side view of my rings right? Well that stone is set as low as possible into that head, I had them get a slightly smaller head so that it would be more spready and the stone filled as much as possible of the head. Don''t know that it''s any ''higher'' than my old stone actually, it looks about the same from the side view height wise. Keep in mind that the head will always be at least the height of the depth of the stone plus a bit of metal. So not sure what your definition of low is, but you are working with a few variables there.

I just measured from my finger to the prong tips of my ring and it''s just under 1/2" in height. That isn''t very high. I would also have WF measure how tall your head is now from the finger and then see how close they can get to keeping it that height if you like it that way.

Just some thoughts. I think you need to better clarify what low is for you and then work from there. Part of what I think is not done often enough on here is clients are not specific enough about what they really want, and vendors don''t set the right expectations for pieces, and that just leads to potential miscommunications!

 

[KristyDarling]

I like how the right-side picture that Mrssalvo posted demonstrates the stackability of that head. Plus, the diamond appears to be sitting quite low in the head. I''m no expert but I don''t see why you can''t have everything you want!

This will be beautiful!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/8/2006 2:17:43 PM
Author: Mara

Lynn, ask John.

Honestly, I don't know about the whole low as possible but sitting flush thing, depends I think on your definition of low.

I did offer advice to Lynn privately. She indicated she'd brainstorm here as well. Her desires as I understand them are as follows:

1) The diamond sitting as low as possible
2) The matching band sitting as flush with the ring as possible

Or

1) Cake

2) Eat it too

But seriously,

here is the challenge: When the diamond sits lower the head sits lower. This results in more metal where the head meets the shank. Depending on ratio of band width to head size this can interfere with how flush a band will sit (see the graphic in MrsSalvo’s post above). Flushness is easier to acquire in designs with wide bands and/or small heads. With narrower bands and larger heads the simplest way to acquire it is to raise the diamond... It is most difficult with thin bands and large diamonds when the desire is for the diamond to sit low.

Lynn has requested a band near 2.0mm wide. At > 2cts her diamond will require a large head to accommodate its wide diameter and depth. Leon has indicated that we can taper the prongs in at an angle in order to put the band close to the ring. We will see if extra support (in the form of a bar?) is necessary. Our primary consideration, shared by Lynn, is durability.

As suggested, diamond ‘low’ or the diamond ‘high’ depends on your interpretation.

Date: 5/8/2006 2:17:43 PM
Author: Mara

Keep in mind that the head will always be at least the height of the depth of the stone plus a bit of metal. So not sure what your definition of low is, but you are working with a few variables there.

I just measured from my finger to the prong tips of my ring and it's just under 1/2' in height. That isn't very high. I would also have WF measure how tall your head is now from the finger and then see how close they can get to keeping it that height if you like it that way.

Just some thoughts. I think you need to better clarify what low is for you and then work from there. Part of what I think is not done often enough on here is clients are not specific enough about what they really want, and vendors don't set the right expectations for pieces, and that just leads to potential miscommunications!

Lynn did ask us to keep records of her current setup for comparison purposes, so we are all on the same page here. To us, Lynn’s diamond is quite low in its current setting, but we are here to try and please, even if that means singing “how low can you go?”

 

[Lynn B]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I am working with John (and Leon) on this. I even suggested that someone from WF maybe take a road trip to check out the Ritani and MB heads!!!!

I sure hope I can have my cake and eat it too!!!!

Edited to add: LOL! As soon as I posted this, I saw John's reply! We must have been typing at the same time. Thanks, John.

 

[Lynn B]

I just re-read John''s post again. Very informative.

Thank you so much, John, for taking the time to explain that to everyone here. It was a great "recap" for me, too.

 

[jcrow]

hum, i hadn''t thought of measuring how high mine is. i just did - from my finger to the top of the prong tip (like mara) - and mine measures about .3125.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/8/2006 4:23:14 PM
Author: Lynn B
I just re-read John''s post again. Very informative.

Thank you so much, John, for taking the time to explain that to everyone here. It was a great ''recap'' for me, too.

Perhaps even a ''rehead''?

Ba da bing!

You''re welcome as always, Lady Lynn.

 

[Mara]

it's limbo time!!!

jcrow...yours seems to sit a little lower than mine, i just estimated with my ruler at work but it was a little shy of 1/2 inch, aka around .40 or so...but honestly it seems pretty low...not much higher (if at all?) than my previous head. maybe because also they shaved down my block of metal a bit.

 

[mrssalvo]

hey lynn I just found this thread with some great pics of the michael b ring.

here''s a couple:

 

[mrssalvo]

and here''s sun''s michael b rings

 

[Lynn B]

Mrs. S,

You are such a doll! THANK YOU for finding those photos. You are AMAZING!

Wow, those photos are so interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about that little decorative metal "V" insert between the prongs at the base of the ring -- although it is growing on me -- and FAST! I wonder if there's any purpose for it? I also wonder what other (suitable) options there may be?

Again -- thank you so much! GREAT PHOTOS!

xoxoxo
Lynn

 

[Lynn B]

Question for Island Dreams, please...

Does each of the four sides of your platinum head have the decorative "V" of metal at the base -- or just the front and back? If that (just the two sides), do you have any photos of the "plain" sides, please?

Thank you sooooo much!

Lynn

ETA: Or has anyone else seen these MBs in person and know?!

 

[mrssalvo]

Lynn,

the rings Bill is sending me will be here today so I'll be able to tell you what's going on with that setting or not. He just sent the wedding bands because I wanted to compare widths and styles. Hopefully Ivanadiamond or Islanddreams will pop in. also fortheloveofdiamonds has the setting too. i'm sure she'll be on later in hangout for idol tonight and you might find out from her there.

i agree about the head. At times I like it and at times i'm not so sure. That is MB's signature head and I think the V is just decorative. I'll be able to give you a full report sometime today

 

[Mara]

with hopefully no offense to those who have them, i gotta say that i don''t really love the MB heads, i think they are rather blocky and unnattractive for such beautiful rings...but that''s just my own feeling. if you did something like that scoop out from the band, i would resdesign the head to have much thinner prongs, show more of the bottom of the diamond, aka try to get rid of the blocky insert etc and create more of a fluid looking sculpted head. the MB heads have always been my least favorite part of those rings, even when i was considering them.

but that kind of IDEA lynn is what i like, also if you can, get into your local BBB (the store!) and check out that ritani solitaire i saw. honestly that thing was just a dream come true in terms of heads for me. BEAUTIFUL and of course i have never been able to find a picture of it on here anywhere really. it has the same kind of sculpted flare but the head itself was much more beautiful and dainty and showed off tons of the stone.

 

[Lynn B]

Mara,

Thanks for the note. I WISH I could get to a BBB but there is NONE anywhere near me! It is so frustrating sometimes -- this country livin'' !!!

I am wondering about a custom variation of the MB head... thinner and daintier (less block-y)... and maybe instead of the V-inset, perhaps a thin and delicate horizontal bar??? I think there is potential there for something lovely and unique... by just taking the MB style and "tweaking" it a little.

Do you know the name of the Ritani style you saw? If not, is there any way you could find out? We could put out an APB for it here on PS -- surely someone has it???! That head you described sounds LOVELY, and I hate to miss the opportunity to explore that option!!!! But my time is quickly getting limited, as WF will be starting production *soon*!!!

 

[Lynn B]

eout="MM_swapImgRestore()">

This is a photo of a Ritani from the BBB website. There are 2 other views, also, and they give detailed looks at the heads, which are quite beautiful. But I can only get those views in thumbnail size. I am a computer dunce, but I will keep trying.