shape
carat
color
clarity

pleaaase help with my leon ER crisis!

sammie83

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
86
hi all... as many of you know, I had leon make my solitaire ER, and it didn't turn out like I wanted :o (more importantly, it didn't turn out the way leon and I had talked about).. well, if you followed my previous thread, you also know that he agreed to remake the ring, although he disagrees with the "changes" (the changes are really what I had said I wanted in the first place)

so, the help I need is regarding the height of the stone. it was waayyyyyy too low for my liking, as in, resting on my finger. I didn't want it high and sticking up, but I didn't want it that low. while I still had it, I took it to a jeweler and it was measured at just under 5mm high (from the inside of the ring, underneath the donut, to the diamond's table)-- I think it was 4.8mm or something-- I can't remember the exact number.. this jeweler recommended that setting it to 6mm high would be at the not too low/not too high point. I know that simple geometry dictates that the angle of the prongs will narrow as the stone is set higher, but will this be drastic enough to make it look "sticky uppy" (sorry, that's the best descriptor I could come up with :D ), or just be at ugly angles? will a 1mm difference take away from the elegance of the ring? or if I have him set it to 5.75mm, will that be enough of a change for me to notice the height difference and be happy, without sacrificing the overall beauty? the solitaire is with the basket coming right out of the shank, as opposed to cathedral. do you think going to cathedral would give me more of the height I want without sacrificing elegance? leon is opposed to setting it higher, but he said he will do it if that is what I want. I'm feeling very confused! I know that I didn't like it set as low as it was, but now I'm scared that it will look worse if I have him raise it.

Do any of you have pictures of the profiles of your rings with the mm height of the stone? that would be incredibly helpful! I tried to find some on here, but am having trouble navigating the new search. pictures of round stones around .9 to 1 carat would be great, but any pictures will help tremendously!

I have to talk to leon tomorrow, so I hope you guys can give me some advice! thanks so much =)
 
Hi sammie83! :wavey:

I remember that you were unhappy with the height of the basket on your LM ring. Do you have pictures of your ring? It's really hard for me to comment without seeing your setting as-is.

My guess is that 1 mm is not going to adversely affect the appearance of your setting. Heck, have you seen some of the settings out there?? You could knock someone's eye out by just shaking hands the diamond is set so high. :errrr:
 
Totally agree with S, 1 mm increase in height of the setting would not make phenomenal difference which is definitely considerable. However if you have a picture of the ring can give better idea more so to evaluate the intensity of your crisis and how high your setting is pushable.
 
I beg to differ -- I think a 1 mm increase in height would be pretty dramatic. I'm in the opposite situation as you, sammie, my ring was set about 1mm higher than I wanted (total depth on the diamond is 4.8mm and I wanted it set at 6mm total height -- I got 7.1mm instead. I have a cathedral with pave on the basket however, so it was the pave on the basket that was causing the additional height. So faced with the decision to keep the basket and pave or set it lower, I kept the basket and pave. My ring would definitely be more elegant with a lower setting, IMO -- but we'll save that for the upgrade, eh?
 
This is my first diamond ring, it is a .80ct RB in the Whiteflash sleekline legato. The diamond is 3.7mm deep and the shank is 1.8mm thick, so I think the stone is about 6mm from table to inside of the shank. This is the perfect height in my opinion.

My present ring is larger at 1.67ct, but the diamond is set higher too, I think close to 6.7mm.

Personally, I think the *perfect* height for a stone is the depth plus 2mm. This height means that when you wear a wedding band with the diamond ring -- which in my expeirence tend to be between 1.5 and 2mm thick -- you can juuust see the culet above the wedding band.

So... what is the depth of your diamond? Add 2mm then ask Leon to set the stone so the distance form the inside of the shank to the table is that height (depth plus 2mm). That will be just perfect.

Another way to figure this is the consider the thickness/height of the shank (i.e. 1.8mm) then add about half a mm, then add that to the depth of the stone and have it set that height.

dreamer6mmstance.jpg
 
antelope1 said:
I beg to differ -- I think a 1 mm increase in height would be pretty dramatic. I'm in the opposite situation as you, sammie, my ring was set about 1mm higher than I wanted (total depth on the diamond is 4.8mm and I wanted it set at 6mm total height -- I got 7.1mm instead. I have a cathedral with pave on the basket however, so it was the pave on the basket that was causing the additional height. So faced with the decision to keep the basket and pave or set it lower, I kept the basket and pave. My ring would definitely be more elegant with a lower setting, IMO -- but we'll save that for the upgrade, eh?

Add a wedding band and I suspect you will be happier with the height! have you tried your ring with bands yet? It really changes how it looks. Too low and the diamond is squatting behind the wedding band :knockout:
 
I tried to go back and read some of your previous threads. Is this what your ring looks like, without the diamonds on the shank?

I know you didn't want to post pictures because your fiance hadn't seen the setting yet. Is that still the case?

Is the culet literally ON your finger? Is it rubbing and uncomfortable?

I agree with b2cjewels - it depends on the setting, if you can "push" it another 1 mm. Maybe Leon can quantify the acceptable limit for you. I keep looking at my ruler and my OWN ring and 1 mm just doesn't seem like that much, but maybe antelope is right. Although antelope, I thought your problem was that your prongs were too chunky?

Pictures sammie, pretty please? ::)

view%202%20pave%20basket.jpg
 
Dreamer_D said:
antelope1 said:
I beg to differ -- I think a 1 mm increase in height would be pretty dramatic. I'm in the opposite situation as you, sammie, my ring was set about 1mm higher than I wanted (total depth on the diamond is 4.8mm and I wanted it set at 6mm total height -- I got 7.1mm instead. I have a cathedral with pave on the basket however, so it was the pave on the basket that was causing the additional height. So faced with the decision to keep the basket and pave or set it lower, I kept the basket and pave. My ring would definitely be more elegant with a lower setting, IMO -- but we'll save that for the upgrade, eh?

Add a wedding band and I suspect you will be happier with the height! have you tried your ring with bands yet? It really changes how it looks. Too low and the diamond is squatting behind the wedding band :knockout:

BIG ditto dreamer.

Do try some bands on before you decide. I had my diamond set too low (I asked for it, they did it) and the centrestone squatted behind even the lowest-profile bands. My current iteration has the diamond set ever so slightly too high when the Ering is worn on its own (1.1mm clearance between bottom of culet and metal) but it looks perfect with a band.
 
Yssie said:
Dreamer_D said:
antelope1 said:
I beg to differ -- I think a 1 mm increase in height would be pretty dramatic. I'm in the opposite situation as you, sammie, my ring was set about 1mm higher than I wanted (total depth on the diamond is 4.8mm and I wanted it set at 6mm total height -- I got 7.1mm instead. I have a cathedral with pave on the basket however, so it was the pave on the basket that was causing the additional height. So faced with the decision to keep the basket and pave or set it lower, I kept the basket and pave. My ring would definitely be more elegant with a lower setting, IMO -- but we'll save that for the upgrade, eh?

Add a wedding band and I suspect you will be happier with the height! have you tried your ring with bands yet? It really changes how it looks. Too low and the diamond is squatting behind the wedding band :knockout:

BIG ditto dreamer.

Do try some bands on before you decide. I had my diamond set too low (I asked for it, they did it) and the centrestone squatted behind even the lowest-profile bands. My current iteration has the diamond set ever so slightly too high when the Ering is worn on its own (1.1mm clearance between bottom of culet and metal) but it looks perfect with a band.

My stone has more clearance but I like to wear it with a diamond half eternity. They are generally hard to find in the shared-prong variety with a stance lower than 2mm, so having a good 2mm clearance between culet and finger is safe if you want to wear eternity bands.
 
Dreamer_D said:
Yssie said:
Dreamer_D said:
antelope1 said:
I beg to differ -- I think a 1 mm increase in height would be pretty dramatic. I'm in the opposite situation as you, sammie, my ring was set about 1mm higher than I wanted (total depth on the diamond is 4.8mm and I wanted it set at 6mm total height -- I got 7.1mm instead. I have a cathedral with pave on the basket however, so it was the pave on the basket that was causing the additional height. So faced with the decision to keep the basket and pave or set it lower, I kept the basket and pave. My ring would definitely be more elegant with a lower setting, IMO -- but we'll save that for the upgrade, eh?

Add a wedding band and I suspect you will be happier with the height! have you tried your ring with bands yet? It really changes how it looks. Too low and the diamond is squatting behind the wedding band :knockout:

BIG ditto dreamer.

Do try some bands on before you decide. I had my diamond set too low (I asked for it, they did it) and the centrestone squatted behind even the lowest-profile bands. My current iteration has the diamond set ever so slightly too high when the Ering is worn on its own (1.1mm clearance between bottom of culet and metal) but it looks perfect with a band.

My stone has more clearance but I like to wear it with a diamond half eternity. They are generally hard to find in the shared-prong variety with a stance lower than 2mm, so having a good 2mm clearance between culet and finger is safe if you want to wear eternity bands.

good point. I should've specified that my band is plain and so pretty low profile
 
Yssie said:
good point. I should've specified that my band is plain and so pretty low profile

This is an important point because the ring I posted above with the under 6mm profile looked bad with my half eternity because the diamond was too low. My new solitaire, which is about 1mm higher in stance, perhaps 1.5mm, looks perfect with my half eternity.
 
If you want him to raise it, have him raise it. You commissioned this from him, not the other way around. This will probably be your last chance to decide what you want and to tell him to do it.

I can see how working with this gentleman could be hard on one's nerves because of what he "wants." All he needs to want at this point is to do what you want done.
 
Dreamer and Yessie -- we'll have to wait a year or so for the wedding band in my case. :D And it will be a pave half eternity, about 1.5mm high, so maybe that will fix my height issue.

In either case, I still think 1mm is a big jump. I have very keen eyes, you see. 8)
 
hi Sammie, I had the same height issues with my upgrade but CADs were made so I did see it before it was cast. When I mentioned the height issue (the lower setting is approx 5mm) my jeweler did another CAD with a higher setting (approx 6mm) which made a huge difference aesthetic wise. I've since got my ring and could not be happier with the height. Good luck with your ring and I hope it turns out exactly how you've imagined it.

update #1 pic #1.jpg
 
wow, you guys are sooo helpful! thanks for all the replies!

starry- yep, you got it right, fiance still hasn't seen it (we live in different countries) so i would prefer not to post pics just yet.. thanks for understanding.. i will def do so after everything is sorted out... and tell you all exactly what happened -- the ring pic you posted from my old post is what i wanted with a plain shank, but leon said he couldn't do that three-sided pave bezel because of the size of my stone :( it is a plain solitaire with a one-sided pave bezel-- and when the jeweler i took it to looked at it, he said the culet was inside the donut, so it couldn't get any lower than that

b2c- thanks for your input-- i'm sorry i can't post pics yet! :eek: i know it would help you guys help me better, but i gotta respect the fi :saint:

antelope- do you have pics of your ring? is there a thread? i guess height becomes a great issue when you can't sit with the jeweler and work everything out, huh? (that's a major lesson learned for me!).. and i hope you get your upgrade in the very near future :D

dreamer- wow! that pic is so helpful! thanks! i also never considered using the depth of my stone as a base number and adding from there...that really helps me too! my stone is 3.87mm deep.. should i ask for it to be set at 5.87mm, or will he think i'm crazy with such an exact number?

i didn't get to try the ring with bands since i sent it back a couple days after i got it...but i know that it probably would have been difficult to find one to sit underneath

yssie- thanks for chiming in too! do you have any before and after pics?

imdanny- haha i wish i could be that stern, but i kinda tried and got some backlash (more on that later).. i will have to tell him definitely what i want, and also try not to push his buttons (sad, i know, but i need it to turn out right this time)

agapitor- OMG...that picture is extremely helpful, and shows just what i needed to see! i can't believe you have a pic of 5mm and 6mm height..that's amazing! thanks so much for sharing!

do you guys think that since my ring is not cathedral, it will make it look "sticky uppy" with the extra height??

thanks all =)
 
I think you are fine raising it 0.5 - 1mm but that is something you have to decide.
Leon's designs use curvy bowed outwards posts so the diamonds tend to sit a little lower. If you raise the diamond height they have to be more straight which is less Leon's style.

But within this range Leon will be curving the prongs over the diamond and they will still be delicate and not sticking up even if you choose 1mm. I'm not sure I would go higher than that though.
 
sammie83 said:
dreamer- wow! that pic is so helpful! thanks! i also never considered using the depth of my stone as a base number and adding from there...that really helps me too! my stone is 3.87mm deep.. should i ask for it to be set at 5.87mm, or will he think i'm crazy with such an exact number?

Yes, he will think yo uare crazy as it would be impossible to set it to an exact number like that. I would request 6mm, with a preference for just under that height rather than just over.
 
Dreamer_D said:
sammie83 said:
dreamer- wow! that pic is so helpful! thanks! i also never considered using the depth of my stone as a base number and adding from there...that really helps me too! my stone is 3.87mm deep.. should i ask for it to be set at 5.87mm, or will he think i'm crazy with such an exact number?

Yes, he will think you are crazy as it would be impossible to set it to an exact number like that. I would request 6mm, with a preference for just under that height rather than just over.
So if I have collected the facts correctly:
Your stone is 3.87 mm deep.
The stone was set at approx. 4.8 mm overall depth.
The culet was just inside the "donut", i.e. the gallery.

What if you were to specify that the culet should be just a hair above the gallery (rather than asking for a specific measurement)? Maybe that would minimize the sticky-uppy look you want to avoid.
 
sammie83 said:
yssie- thanks for chiming in too! do you have any before and after pics?

The best I could find but they show what I mean I think (in both cases the plain band is 1.6mm high), in the first pic you can see the culet but IRL I found I pretty much never could - I really had to look parallel to my finger to see it otherwise the lower portion of the stone sat hidden behind the band

not squat.jpg

Squat.jpg
 
Yssie said:
sammie83 said:
yssie- thanks for chiming in too! do you have any before and after pics?

The best I could find but they show what I mean I think (in both cases the plain band is 1.6mm high), in the first pic you can see the culet but IRL I found I pretty much never could - I really had to look parallel to my finger to see it otherwise the lower portion of the stone sat hidden behind the band

haha... "Squat" and "not Squat" :lol:
 
Dreamer_D said:
Yssie said:
sammie83 said:
yssie- thanks for chiming in too! do you have any before and after pics?

The best I could find but they show what I mean I think (in both cases the plain band is 1.6mm high), in the first pic you can see the culet but IRL I found I pretty much never could - I really had to look parallel to my finger to see it otherwise the lower portion of the stone sat hidden behind the band

haha... "Squat" and "not Squat" :lol:

hehe the "squat" and "not squat" titles are pretty funny :lol:

i def like the "not squat" better!
 
alright guys...i think i have to break down and post a pic because i really need to decide tonight/tomorrow morning what to tell leon.. i didn't get a chance to call him today as i was not feeling well at all, so tomorrow's the day... and i'm not sure what to tell him exactly

it is mainly what ChunkyCushionLover said that is making me post a pic.. that his style is not to have the prongs straight, but somewhat curved..and i'm pretty sure mine were stick straight (which also bugged me).. would they really have to be straight if the height is increased? i think yssie's ring's height is higher than mine would be, and her basket is nicely curved

also, i think the paved bezel is too wide, what do you guys think? i want to ask him to narrow it. and i also don't like how it cuts through the exact middle of the basket...shouldn't it be more in the upper half? if you look at some of the solitaires on his site, the bezel looks much thinner.. specifically i had asked him to model it after r1060 http://www.artofplatinum.com/portfolio/details.php?image_id=436 (you'll have to click on the profile shot to see it)

starry- i would have tried to say that to him, but he told me i had to give him a specific height in mm or he would not remake the ring for me

i'm not sure how high the band was.. i know it was [supposed] to be 1.8mm wide, but the profile height i don't know

help poor lil sammie please ;(

LM Ring 003 ps.JPG
 
sammie83 said:
alright guys...i think i have to break down and post a pic because i really need to decide tonight/tomorrow morning what to tell leon.. i didn't get a chance to call him today as i was not feeling well at all, so tomorrow's the day... and i'm not sure what to tell him exactly

it is mainly what ChunkyCushionLover said that is making me post a pic.. that his style is not to have the prongs straight, but somewhat curved..and i'm pretty sure mine were stick straight (which also bugged me).. would they really have to be straight if the height is increased? i think yssie's ring's height is higher than mine would be, and her basket is nicely curved

also, i think the paved bezel is too wide, what do you guys think? i want to ask him to narrow it. and i also don't like how it cuts through the exact middle of the basket...shouldn't it be more in the upper half? if you look at some of the solitaires on his site, the bezel looks much thinner.. specifically i had asked him to model it after r1060 http://www.artofplatinum.com/portfolio/details.php?image_id=436 (you'll have to click on the profile shot to see it)

starry- i would have tried to say that to him, but he told me i had to give him a specific height in mm or he would not remake the ring for me

i'm not sure how high the band was.. i know it was [supposed] to be 1.8mm wide, but the profile height i don't know

help poor lil sammie please ;(

Wellll... the aspirational ring is 3.5ct and yours is under 1ct, that means the design will look a lot differnt when scaled down. It is simply not going to look the same no matter what! And Yssie's ring is also 2.7ct meaning there is much more room to play with proportions and curve and all that with such a ring. Notice the picture below, it is the same setting style with a .80ct and then a 1.2ct. notice how the basket is quite different? The prongs are straighter on the .80 than on the 1.2ct. Most of the under 1ct rings I have seen in Leon's settings have prongs like yours. This is the trouble with choosing a style that you have only seen with a diamond much larger than your own, it is hard to picture.

Seeing the photo your stone does not look shockingly low. The thickness of the band seems to me to be about 1.5-1.8mm which is similar to my original legato sleek line, the one posted above. The difference between your ring and the ring I posted is not the height/stance, but rather the cathedral style, which I think changes the way a ring looks quite a bit.

I also doubt he can make the cross bar on the basket much thinner and still have diamonds on it. What size are those melee? You can ask for smaller melee, but not sure it will help.

I think you are not going to get the look you want with that style of solitaire and your size diamond! Sorry to be miss pessimist! But you can ask him to raise the diamond between .5 and 1mm, and ask him to use smaller melee on the cross bar, but otherwise I am not sure I would micromanage it too much or you could end up with something you do not want.

Personally, I really like your ring as it is 8) It is a very nice example *of the style*. Now, if the trouble is that you want a different style, well that is another kettle of fish.

compareheads.jpg
 
Hi sammie. Your ring is very nice! You could wear it just as it is and it's beautiful. However if you're not happy change it for sure.

If it were my ring, I think I may consider the following:

1. I'd maybe want the prongs to be more curvy, more cup-shaped and less like a straight V. Similar to Yssie's.
2. That may mean opening a larger gallery, I'm not sure though.
3. I agree with you about the "paved bezel". I think I'd prefer it closer to the diamond girdle and a little thinner, but DreamerD has an excellent point about the scale and the size melee available.

I don't necessarily think the diamond is set too low, although with a WB, you may like it higher. It is VERY nice just as is though. :love:
 
I see what you mean, and to me it does look too "squat". I think 1/2 to 3/4mm would do the trick. Just to give it a bit more ooph!
 
Sammie, I think Dreamer has made some good points there. Because your stone is much smaller than the one you have based it on, it is a matter of Leon having set it with similar angles to the larger one - and that was never going to look the same, because the ring is much larger relative to the stone and mount in your particular ring. I think you could raise it a little - perhaps 1mm - but be aware that because of the scale of it, raising it 1mm will noticeably change the angle of the prongs arising from the shank - ie they will look more vertical. I know you want to avoid the "sticking out" look; I actually think that that look is quite dependent on the curvature/angle of the prongs (and the size of the stone), rather than the absolute height of the setting, so I wouldn't do anything too drastic.

I actually think the ring looks lovely as is; are you sure it is not that you would prefer a cathedral setting (where you can achieve more height without the "sticking out" look)?
 
sammie:
i am very confused. the picture you posted makes it look the there is no bezel just prongs and a wide pave'd center basket bar. can you post a picture looking straight down at the stone and one looking at the profile of the side with the band?
 
bgray said:
sammie:
i am very confused. the picture you posted makes it look the there is no bezel just prongs and a wide pave'd center basket bar. can you post a picture looking straight down at the stone and one looking at the profile of the side with the band?

I assumed she used the term "bezel" incorrectly to refer to the cross bar. It is not a bezel set ring unless I am out to lunch.
 
Sammie, your ring is very pretty! I don't think it looks squat, although I also think it would look lovely with the diamond raised a little (especially considering the aesthetic w/ a wedding band).

Now to the nitty gritty: dreamer makes very good points. In the inspiration ring I think the prongs *are* straight, as opposed to bowed outwards like mine, it's just that since there's more stone in the inspiration ring, there's more stone to "cup"; I also think the bezel is the same width - again the apparent difference is the result of proportion rather than manufacturing like dreamer said.

Though it doesn't hurt to ask (well, maybe with leon it does :devil: ) I agree there will be limits to what he can do with the bezel width and placement because of the melee requirement. He could use smaller melee, but a whole number of stones would still be required to fit into the alotted space between the prongs (say, 3 1-pointers or 4 half-pointers - just an example) or you'd see metal between the stones. The melee have depth - small, but it's there, which means the bezel has a certain *height* of it's own, and if he places it too high on the prongs (too close to the girdle) you'll see the melee protruding out from underneath when you look at the ring from face-up. If he places it too low it's unsightly and doesn't stronghold the prongs..
 
pancake-- thanks for the advice. i don't like cathedral settings when there is no other work on the shank and undercarriage, for a plain shank i prefer this look.. i suppose what you said about the angles makes sense, and i should probably talk to leon abt it, but i'm scared :(sad

bgray and dreamer- leon calls this the "upper bezel" so that must be the correct name.. it is not the same as "bezel set" which is what you guys are probably thinking of ;))

dreamer and yssie- the picture i linked you to was just for the way i wanted the upper bezel to look, not the whole ring.. wouldn't it make sense that if that stone is large and the bezel is thin, that a smaller stone's bezel would be thinner since it is downscaled?

starry- i think you know just what i want-- i hope it can be made like that :confused:

thank you all for bringing up points that i can address to make my changes.. you have all helped me a great deal!

now, for that call... :shock:
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top