Setting help (Silvery Topaz)

[FrekeChild]

Ok, so I''m planning on wearing one or maybe both of my silvery topazes when we get married. Problem is, I''m not sure how to set them, which is where you guys come in...

Supernova Oval, silver topaz, Barry, 7.41cts, 10.2 x 12.2
Supernova Oval, silver topaz, Barry, 4.45cts, 10 x 8.3

First I''ll use my inspiration photos...

This is a little bit out of control, but I think something that''s a happy medium between this and the next pics...

 

[FrekeChild]

And this.

 

[FrekeChild]

one more...

 

[FrekeChild]

So here are the stones. Basically I need help with the configuration. I'm thinking that I'd put the bigger one in a 4 prong basket, but I don't know N/S or E/W, and I'm not sure if I should put the big one on top or bottom. And how to set the smaller one AND what direction to put it in. So I need help figuring it out.

Reflecting the camera

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

I tried to take as many pics of as many combos as I could, but I''m sure I missed something...

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[DiamanteBlu]

You might want to get a 3rd stone and do something like this:

 

[FrekeChild]

Sorry this one is huge.

I'll try to resize and repost.

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

Wow I''m messed up tonight.

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

...

 

[FrekeChild]

Last one.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/9/2009 11:18:26 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu
You might want to get a 3rd stone and do something like this:

Wow, that''s beautiful Diamante. The thing is, I want to have two separate necklaces so I can wear only one at a time if I choose, because unless I was getting really dressed up, this would probably be the only time I''d wear them together. And they are BIG.

I love Angelina''s necklace because it''s got the bigger stones, but I love the look of Giada''s. There was a picture I found a while back (but was deleted from my comp) that had a big oval that was N/S on the bottom and a haloed oval set E/W above it. So that''s my real inspiration, but I doubt I could really find that pic again.

Anyway, I''m welcome to suggestions!!!

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Hmmmm . . . I''ll have to ruminate on that one. Maybe I will wake up with an idea!

 

[innerkitten]

Gosh I love Angelina''s necklace. She always has the coolest jewelry! I wouldn''t do East West. I would probably have them hanging like ovals ( the long way) with the larger one on top and the smaller one below. I like the idea of them belong on seperate chains and attached somehow, not sure how those examples are attached.

 

[MonkeyPie]

I like 3594 and 3600! I think a dainty chain on each with one strand an inch or two shorter than the other would be lovely!

 

[ma re]

The shorter chain should carry the smaller stone, cause the other way around doesen''t make much sense if you wear them together (more visual weight on top). I''d set the smaller one E/W, and the bigger one N/S, cause the smaller one would be on a shorter chain - the other way around would look weird IMO. And if both would be set the same way, you''d have two identical necklaces, with size of the stones being the only difference between them; not much fun.

As to the design, visualize this; a simple link bracelet; than another one conected to the first one, so that you get a necklace with two clasps. Now imagine one of the bracelets having a stone. Now imagine attaching another one like it, to the plain one. And you have a necklace with both stones, on separate chains, each of which you can take off or put on. Sorry, no pictures - you''ll have to use your imagination for this. Clasps could, off course, be hidden or ornated, so that they look like design elements.

 

[knitwit]

I love Angelina''s look...but I think you need the right dress/event to pull it off that much bling. That being said I think you could achieve a similar look with your stones.

If it were me I''d have both stones set E/W. I just like uniform look when wearing the two pieces together, which I realize you could achieve setting N/S as well. I''m just thinking about when I wear the shorter piece with a higher neckline a E/W piece wouldn''t be as likely to hang below the neckline and not be seen.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ma re, what you have in your head is what I was originally thinking. Then I got the stones, and I''m wondering if the proportions would look funny since the smaller stone is quite a bit smaller than the big one, but yet, the dimensions are kind of random with the smaller one being basically the same length at the bigger one''s width. The question here, is how do I set that smaller one? I could bezel, I could try to do something else to give it more heft if it would make the proportions look less off, if that makes sense. And not that they look off, I''m just not sure about it.

So like this one?

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/10/2009 7:06:05 AM
Author: knitwit
I love Angelina''s look...but I think you need the right dress/event to pull it off that much bling. That being said I think you could achieve a similar look with your stones.

If it were me I''d have both stones set E/W. I just like uniform look when wearing the two pieces together, which I realize you could achieve setting N/S as well. I''m just thinking about when I wear the shorter piece with a higher neckline a E/W piece wouldn''t be as likely to hang below the neckline and not be seen.

I am by no means trying to copy Angelina''s necklace. I believe that thing was over 100 carats of diamonds. The only thing I''m considering with this project that is in common with hers is that she has bigger chunkier stones than Giada, and it has a layered look. Otherwise, it''s more like Giada''s because I''m not wanting or able to afford the extra bling she has going on with that particular necklace.

I''m basically asking if you guys think which direction I should set the two stones, how I should get them set and which one is on the shorter chain and which should go on the longer one.

As for the dress, so you know what it''s going with:

 

[innerkitten]

Ooooh, that is a cool dress. Silver? I didn''t wear white at my wedding. But then I wasn''t really that dressed up. Anyway, that is one pretty dress Freke. It will look great with the white topaz necklace.

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

Date: 3/10/2009 5:21:16 AM
Author: ma re
The shorter chain should carry the smaller stone, cause the other way around doesen''t make much sense if you wear them together (more visual weight on top). I''d set the smaller one E/W, and the bigger one N/S, cause the smaller one would be on a shorter chain - the other way around would look weird IMO. And if both would be set the same way, you''d have two identical necklaces, with size of the stones being the only difference between them; not much fun.


As to the design, visualize this; a simple link bracelet; than another one conected to the first one, so that you get a necklace with two clasps. Now imagine one of the bracelets having a stone. Now imagine attaching another one like it, to the plain one. And you have a necklace with both stones, on separate chains, each of which you can take off or put on. Sorry, no pictures - you''ll have to use your imagination for this. Clasps could, off course, be hidden or ornated, so that they look like design elements.

Mr. Ma re''s suggestion is what I was visualizing too!

 

[mercoledi]

I would do the little one up top e/w, the larger one below n/s and finally... on a third strand, a big fat pear!

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/10/2009 4:56:40 PM
Author: innerkitten
Ooooh, that is a cool dress. Silver? I didn''t wear white at my wedding. But then I wasn''t really that dressed up. Anyway, that is one pretty dress Freke. It will look great with the white topaz necklace.

Yeah. They call it "Dove Gray'' but it''s really silver with just the slightest hint of taupe to it. What did you wear? And thank you!!!

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/10/2009 5:06:37 PM
Author: Brown.Eyed.Girl

Date: 3/10/2009 5:21:16 AM
Author: ma re
The shorter chain should carry the smaller stone, cause the other way around doesen''t make much sense if you wear them together (more visual weight on top). I''d set the smaller one E/W, and the bigger one N/S, cause the smaller one would be on a shorter chain - the other way around would look weird IMO. And if both would be set the same way, you''d have two identical necklaces, with size of the stones being the only difference between them; not much fun.

As to the design, visualize this; a simple link bracelet; than another one conected to the first one, so that you get a necklace with two clasps. Now imagine one of the bracelets having a stone. Now imagine attaching another one like it, to the plain one. And you have a necklace with both stones, on separate chains, each of which you can take off or put on. Sorry, no pictures - you''ll have to use your imagination for this. Clasps could, off course, be hidden or ornated, so that they look like design elements.

Mr. Ma re''s suggestion is what I was visualizing too!

But how should I set them? 4 prongs on the big one? Bezel on the small one? Obviously it will be in white metal...