Setting for an AVR...poll

[bunnycat]

I read the first bits and voted VC all the way. They really bring out the older style cuts. Now, I'll need to go back and reread....

I saw you were thinking some other wb to go with the VC and I agree. The 484 was one of my ering possibilities, and I didn't like the band that was supposed to go with it, but I did like other bands with it so if you went with VC I'd get other bands to put with it. Aeoli's pics showed it very well. Love it with the eternity.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think the Legacy band works to a certain extent. I think the milgrain on both rings does not lend itself to smooth and sleek. However, an antique style mounting will never be that anyway. It is intricate and the beauty of it to those that like that type of setting is in the details and the intricacy.

You are changing looks completely - new type of stone, new type of mounting and hoping that it will work with an existing ring makes sense but I don't know that I'd throw the whole ring and stone off the table because of the wedding band. It does work and you might find something else later on down the road that works better. You might keep the Legacy or even sell it. There are probably other vendors (Canera or Kirsch come to mind) that might be able to fashion some sort of band that would better suit the VanC. I truly don't like the matching band but do see some promise with the plain one. I think the idea here is to have a band that doesn't overwhelm or compete with the ering setting or look too much like an old fashioned 'wedding set'.

You seem pretty certain that you want an AVR. That's the first step. If its the VanC setting that you want for all of the reasons heretofore mentioned, then that's step two. You could also wear this ring without a band at all or use your Legacy in the meanwhile. If the Legacy band feels forever for you and you don't love the two rings together, look for another type of mounting that looks good with the Legacy. You're juggling lots of balls here at one time and it does make the picture murky. You'll just have to go step by step with the largest expense (the diamond) as your first decision and work your way down the line.

Just as a thought - have you ever considered any of the Tacori settings? They seem to work well with the AVRs and AVCs too. Ask Jonathan to plop an AVR in some of his settings on hand and send you a video. He might come up with something really special too.

The best part is that you have time on your side - you don't have to decide all of it today. It is a lot to consider and a lot of money when all added up. Haste makes waste but I know that you will carefully consider each and every scenario.

Are you loving the VanC setting as much as you thought you would? Does it blow you away or did you think it would look different? I wish it were in white metal so you could really get a feel for it but I guess you can pretty much envision it in white.

 

[junebug17]

So...how do you feel about the VC? Are you totally in love with it? Can you envision it as your forever setting? Or is it the wband issue that's preventing you from being really excited about it? I agree with MGR that you shouldn't let the wband deter you from getting the VC if you are absolutely crazy in love with it because the legacy certainly does look pretty with it. It's really hard to tell from pics, and it's great that you have a chance to see the two rings together on your hand. In the end it really doesn't matter what the peanut gallery has to say lol - now that you've had a chance to wear them for a while, what do you think? Do you like the look of them together?

 

[Polished]

Your wedding band has an ordered look, which is why it works so successfully with your Tiffany repro ring but not quite so with the ornate VC. Looking at your pictures, I found myself wanting to see your Tiffany with an AVR up against the Legacy band.

 

[bunnycat]

I think the other thing that would look really good on the VC is their fishtail prongs (can't remember the name of the head) instead of the plain 4 prong. I think the ring in Aeoli's pic has it.

 

[cookies]

I think the fishtail or floral prongs are called #4 head. They are my all time favorite prongs. Both Sonny Jim and seahorsegurl have 484 (the large version, I think) with #4 head. Even though DS said (a long time ago) that she prefers the regular prongs, I guess it won't hurt to post a couple pictures now..maybe she will change her mind.

Here are Sonny Jim's. The center stone is 1.26ct, G, VS1.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the Legacy band works to a certain extent. I think the milgrain on both rings does not lend itself to smooth and sleek. However, an antique style mounting will never be that anyway. It is intricate and the beauty of it to those that like that type of setting is in the details and the intricacy.

You are changing looks completely - new type of stone, new type of mounting and hoping that it will work with an existing ring makes sense but I don't know that I'd throw the whole ring and stone off the table because of the wedding band. It does work and you might find something else later on down the road that works better. You might keep the Legacy or even sell it. There are probably other vendors (Canera or Kirsch come to mind) that might be able to fashion some sort of band that would better suit the VanC. I truly don't like the matching band but do see some promise with the plain one. I think the idea here is to have a band that doesn't overwhelm or compete with the ering setting or look too much like an old fashioned 'wedding set'.

You seem pretty certain that you want an AVR. That's the first step. If its the VanC setting that you want for all of the reasons heretofore mentioned, then that's step two. You could also wear this ring without a band at all or use your Legacy in the meanwhile. If the Legacy band feels forever for you and you don't love the two rings together, look for another type of mounting that looks good with the Legacy. You're juggling lots of balls here at one time and it does make the picture murky. You'll just have to go step by step with the largest expense (the diamond) as your first decision and work your way down the line.

Just as a thought - have you ever considered any of the Tacori settings? They seem to work well with the AVRs and AVCs too. Ask Jonathan to plop an AVR in some of his settings on hand and send you a video. He might come up with something really special too.

The best part is that you have time on your side - you don't have to decide all of it today. It is a lot to consider and a lot of money when all added up. Haste makes waste but I know that you will carefully consider each and every scenario.

Are you loving the VanC setting as much as you thought you would? Does it blow you away or did you think it would look different? I wish it were in white metal so you could really get a feel for it but I guess you can pretty much envision it in white.

I was out this evening and just got home! I really appreciate all the input from my jewelry friends!!!

MGR...yes, you are right that the diamond comes first and I am certain I want an AVR if the right stone comes in. One concern I have not yet expressed is that this ring looks good with the 7mm (1.25 ct) stone in it. I think a 1.5 would be fine, too. But I am not sure about larger just because the ring is delicate and I don't want the diamond to overwhelm the setting. I DO love the setting, though! It is incredibly beautiful and that is a fact whether I end up with it or not! Having the platinum wedding band helps to envision the e-ring in platinum.

I do think some Tacori settings are beautiful, but I think they are overpriced. I'd probably rather have something custom made before I would spend that much. And some of theirs are just a little too ornate for me.

I'll go down and respond to the other posts now...I do have one other thought about the bands that just came to me.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So...how do you feel about the VC? Are you totally in love with it? Can you envision it as your forever setting? Or is it the wband issue that's preventing you from being really excited about it? I agree with MGR that you shouldn't let the wband deter you from getting the VC if you are absolutely crazy in love with it because the legacy certainly does look pretty with it. It's really hard to tell from pics, and it's great that you have a chance to see the two rings together on your hand. In the end it really doesn't matter what the peanut gallery has to say lol - now that you've had a chance to wear them for a while, what do you think? Do you like the look of them together?

I do love the VC e-ring but my uncertainty has to do with the wedding band issue and the fact that I might rather put a 1.5 ct. stone in it and I know Jonathan does not have a 1.5 with the specs I want. So that is problematic. I think part of it is just fear of making a commitment to ANY ring because I want this to be the permanent LAST e-ring! When I came here 6 years ago looking for a new set, I had worn my original set for 30 years!!!! I never thought I would change the set from 5 years ago! It's just that those AV stones were irresistable!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Your wedding band has an ordered look, which is why it works so successfully with your Tiffany repro ring but not quite so with the ornate VC. Looking at your pictures, I found myself wanting to see your Tiffany with an AVR up against the Legacy band.

Yes, I have no doubt that that would be simple and very beautiful. It is the safe choice and I couldn't go wrong if I did that. I just have to decide if I want to put the stone in a more elaborate ring and then go for a more plain w-band or keep things as they are.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

bastecat and cookie.... thanks for the thoughts about the fishtail prongs. While I think they are beautiful on the rings above, that is just a step more ornate, and I am taking such a leap from a plain Tiffany ring as it is! So I think the more simple head is more "me".

Here is one thought about wedding bands...

Awhile back I bought and returned a plain 2mm Tiffany platinum band with milgrain. It is a band that has some height to it, and I think it might look good with the VC e-ring. In addition, they have another new band that might work, too. Here are the links...

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP00376&mcat=148204&cid=288152&search_params=s+5-p+5-c+288152-r+101323340-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP05468&mcat=148204&cid=288152&search_params=s+5-p+2-c+288152-r+101323340-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+

Here is the only picture I have of the first Tiffany band...

 

[sunseeker101]

DS, that was lightning quick!! I think the Legacy band looks good with it overall, but is maybe a little bit too thick against the 484. But at 2mm the notion is crazy! One attribute I think causes a little clash is the relative size of the milgrain -- but we know how deceptive pictures can be with these items and I can totally believe that the real-life equation might be much closer to perfect!

I see you're considering a plain-milgrained Tiff band -- I have the 2-toned version in 3mm and can take comparative pics in daylight tomorrow? (I've just tried inside and the results are dismal!) It strikes me that it's almost a different project when the finger size is so different! I wonder if VC placed a bigger CZ into your sample so that now it's obscuring the side details? I know that a ring you order won't suffer with that!

One other thing is that the plat version 484 is a shiny beast! The rhodium plate sticks thickly to this design because it's smooth and gives a very different look to the yellow gold, and most likely an improvement in suitability with the Legacy! Another issue is that the chunky cut of an AVR (and especially if it's larger) gives a stronger, more robust look to the endeavor and might balance even better than it does now!

I say if you love the ring design and know the diamond will be most at home there, and that the Legacy is bound to float your boat but maybe not be the holy grail match, maybe do it anyway and enjoy wending your way to the final answer?! Advice from a jewelry tart probably isn't the best to follow if you're conscientious and cautious, so take with large bucketful of salt.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

DS, that was lightning quick!! I think the Legacy band looks good with it overall, but is maybe a little bit too thick against the 484. But at 2mm the notion is crazy! One attribute I think causes a little clash is the relative size of the milgrain -- but we know how deceptive pictures can be with these items and I can totally believe that the real-life equation might be much closer to perfect!

I see you're considering a plain-milgrained Tiff band -- I have the 2-toned version in 3mm and can take comparative pics in daylight tomorrow? (I've just tried inside and the results are dismal!) It strikes me that it's almost a different project when the finger size is so different! I wonder if VC placed a bigger CZ into your sample so that now it's obscuring the side details? I know that a ring you order won't suffer with that!

One other thing is that the plat version 484 is a shiny beast! The rhodium plate sticks thickly to this design because it's smooth and gives a very different look to the yellow gold, and most likely an improvement in suitability with the Legacy! Another issue is that the chunky cut of an AVR (and especially if it's larger) gives a stronger, more robust look to the endeavor and might balance even better than it does now!

I say if you love the ring design and know the diamond will be most at home there, and that the Legacy is bound to float your boat but maybe not be the holy grail match, maybe do it anyway and enjoy wending your way to the final answer?! Advice from a jewelry tart probably isn't the best to follow if you're conscientious and cautious, so take with large bucketful of salt.

Yes, Paul sent the rings overnight! So very nice! That is great that you have a Tiffany milgrain band! That two tone one is pretty, too! You are so sweet to take pictures for me! I think the key to this whole thing is to have multiple sets like you!!! The milgrain on the VC is so tiny that you can't even see it without a loupe and that is why I think it doesn't conflict with the Legacy band milgrain.

I don't think the stone size in this ring is a problem. I can see all the details because my hand is not still all the time. But I am not sure if I want a 1.8 ct. stone in this setting, either. I really like it with the stone that is in it. How many mm is your transitional?

 

[sunseeker101]

DS, the stone is 7.5 x 7.4mm, which is slightly too small for me and the cause of the #4 head!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

DS, the stone is 7.5 x 7.4mm, which is slightly too small for me and the cause of the #4 head!

That is the same size as my current rb, so I can visualize that well. But do you think a larger round is going to look right in that setting?

 

[Dreamer_D]

DS I have been thinking about this all day since I saw your photo. My feeling is that this setting may not be *it*. I definitely want to see you get a hand crafted mount, something artisan and for the ages, but I am not sure that this setting is the way to go? Somehow seeing it on your hand it feels a little busy for your style. Aelionarpa rocks that setting, I feel like her larger finger size and personal style works with it. For you, I am wondering about a *slightly* simpler style? Like, for example, my own mount is very intricate and detailed, but at the same time the diamond is the star and it "reads" like a solitaire. Many of the most special details are ones only I can see. Now, as I said, some of the nuance of your mount is likely lost in photos, as they are for mine. But I wonder whether a VCray that does not have side stones is more your speed? Ticks a few boxes -- details, craftsmanship, artistry, and versatility? I am not familiar with their catalogue so can't pull any up, but I am just letting you know what I have been thinking about as I pondered your new setting today

 

[sunseeker101]

I would have some reservations based on your small finger size about how it would fit across the finger (and especially if they don't obscure the side diamonds) -- the only person in VC who could address this accurately for you is Larry, I do believe. How much bigger would the 1.8ct be, an extra 0.1 - 0.2mm? I'd say if you pitched the details to Larry you'd have a most accurate idea about the end result in minutes. Despite my reservations I think the result would be spectacular (just on the basis that Larry is an artist and thinks about details that no-one could ever think of, seriously, I find the man's judgement to be infallible) but I know custom work is heart-rate raising because it's almost invisible until it's done. Warmer or colder?

ETA: Dreamer, I have to confess I was thinking of suggesting the more art-deco feel of VC 483 (more linear and simple).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

DS I have been thinking about this all day since I saw your photo. My feeling is that this setting may not be *it*. I definitely want to see you get a hand crafted mount, something artisan and for the ages, but I am not sure that this setting is the way to go? Somehow seeing it on your hand it feels a little busy for your style. Aelionarpa rocks that setting, I feel like her larger finger size and personal style works with it. For you, I am wondering about a *slightly* simpler style? Like, for example, my own mount is very intricate and detailed, but at the same time the diamond is the star and it "reads" like a solitaire. Many of the most special details are ones only I can see. Now, as I said, some of the nuance of your mount is likely lost in photos, as they are for mine. But I wonder whether a VCray that does not have side stones is more your speed? Ticks a few boxes -- details, craftsmanship, artistry, and versatility? I am not familiar with their catalogue so can't pull any up, but I am just letting you know what I have been thinking about as I pondered your new setting today

Thank you, Dreamer! I always value your input and will take your suggestion of looking through the other VC settings. You are right that I am very casual and I need to be sure not to overdo my everyday set. And I'll take any other setting ideas you may have!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would have some reservations based on your small finger size about how it would fit across the finger (and especially if they don't obscure the side diamonds) -- the only person in VC who could address this accurately for you is Larry, I do believe. How much bigger would the 1.8ct be, an extra 0.1 - 0.2mm? I'd say if you pitched the details to Larry you'd have a most accurate idea about the end result in minutes. Despite my reservations I think the result would be spectacular (just on the basis that Larry is an artist and thinks about details that no-one could ever think of, seriously, I find the man's judgement to be infallible) but I know custom work is heart-rate raising because it's almost invisible until it's done. Warmer or colder?

ETA: Dreamer, I have to confess I was thinking of suggesting the more art-deco feel of VC 483 (more linear and simple).

The 1.8 I tried on was 7.8mm. Paul said they had set much larger stones in the setting than that, so I am sure they must know how to do it well. It is just hard when you can't see an example.

I'll check out the 483 and then to bed! Thanks, Aeol!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just for the record, I adore ksmom's beautiful set (1.6 cushion, Leon solitaire, VC band):

 

[MissGotRocks]

Just for the record, I adore ksmom's beautiful set (1.6 cushion, Leon solitaire, VC band):

I saw that last night too - it is gorgeous! Might you consider something like that?

 

[stargurl78]

I'll be honest, I agree with Dreamer, I don't really care for the VC on you. It just seems too busy (but maybe it is just the pairing with your wedding band?). How did you feel about it on your hand?

I LOVE ksmom's set I think something similar to that is what I would lean towards.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

MGR and stargurl.... I will have to say that ksmom's set is probably more "me". The Beaudry RHR's are more antique and ornate but I do not wear them everyday. In spite of wanting a spectacular setting, I am not sure that anything really would suit me better than something like ksmom's set, which is virtually similar to what I already wear although I don't have a third band at this point. I'd like one, though. Maybe I should be looking at VC bands for an alternate wedding band and just go with another solitaire. I know that is boring but it is safe for me. I still would like to have the 484 but maybe with a cushion in it instead of my potential round. But really, I should focus on one great set.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

 

[Gypsy]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

YES for me.

 

[Skippy123]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

SingleStone has something similar and I would go for the SS version.

 

[stargurl78]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

YES for me.

Ditto. 100% gets my vote (in fact I think I might have mentioned that setting earlier in this thread ). I would see if they can do double claw prongs though.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

YES for me.

Ditto. 100% gets my vote (in fact I think I might have mentioned that setting earlier in this thread ). I would see if they can do double claw prongs though.

Well, interesting!!! Stargurl, you read my mind! That was one of the changes I had in mind. Because of the changes, I might ask Victor for a quote since I like working directly with the bench when possible.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

SingleStone has something similar and I would go for the SS version.

Do you have any pictures, Skippy? Apparently it is hard to get profile pictures from them now. Have you decided on a setting for your stone?

 

[Skippy123]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

SingleStone has something similar and I would go for the SS version.

Do you have any pictures, Skippy? Apparently it is hard to get profile pictures from them now. Have you decided on a setting for your stone?

here it is


not yet, I am being super slack about it! lol

 

[stargurl78]

Okay, let's add another ring into the mix. What about something similar to the JBEG Sophie but with a tweak or two? Burk has this...her thread:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/burks-2-8ct-omc-sophie-reset-plus-family-pics.174823/#post-3183011#p3183011[/URL]

YES for me.

Ditto. 100% gets my vote (in fact I think I might have mentioned that setting earlier in this thread ). I would see if they can do double claw prongs though.

Well, interesting!!! Stargurl, you read my mind! That was one of the changes I had in mind. Because of the changes, I might ask Victor for a quote since I like working directly with the bench when possible.

Great minds think alike! I like the SS version too but I don't really like those "pieces" on the side that are making it into a cathedral setting. They look like they were an afterthought or something. I much prefer the JBEG version.