She put me in charge (Vintage e-ring)

[mercoledi]

I like square stones, though I prefer step-cut to radiants, but there's something about that setting that rubs me the wrong way.
how about:

Remaking something like this in a size that fits your budget.
or
This one is great if you like deco
or
This one is at the low end of your budget, but check out the hand shot, it's beautiful on.

On this page setting #L1005 is gorgeous and would leave you with about 2200 for a center stone, which at .6-.8 ct could be a really nice stone whether you chose a modern cut or enlisted someone to help find a older stone.

pic:

 

[eugenewood]

Point taken on the princess cut. OK, if you guys had to pick from the following:

http://antiqueengagementrings.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=1555

http://www.tias.com/9207/PictPage/1923096322.html

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=320

Which one, and why? The third one would be the bravest choice, for the color and size of it, but I cant argue that its beautiful. This could be the final three.

 

[neatfreak]

#2 hands down.

I do love number 3 but I worry that halos will look dated eventually and I also worry about the color/clarity of the center stone. Leon does NOT allow returns for small items, so that''s a problem with that one.

 

[oshinbreez]

If I had to pick from the 3, I''d pick the second because I don''t think I''d trust the color of the last, and the 1st one just looks too much like other rings.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 5/17/2007 4:44:26 PM
Author: eugenewood
if you guys had to pick from the following: Which one, and why?

I have to say ... I love all three of those choices for different reasons. Here are the pros & cons as I see them.

#1 -- beautiful flow, very blingy ... but a "J" color & more chance of loose stones
#2 -- lovely engravings, higher color "G" ... but shaped more like traditional solitare
#3 -- will look "big" on the hand & flawless workmanship ... but the "o" color is a risk

If I *personally* was going to choose one to wear forever ... I'd pick #2 -- which shouldn't be a suprise, since it appealed to me so much I posted it!

ETA: one other thing to think about ... who has a return policy .. if you buy it and don't like it as much in person. I don't believe #3 has that option. Don't know about the other two.

 

[iheartscience]

Definitely number 2. It just looks better than the first one, and I''d skip the Leon for the same reasons neatfreak mentioned.

 

[MustangGal]

I kinda like #1 better, I''m not sure if I like how thin the band on #2 looks. I think the prong orientation makes it different and unique as well.

 

[mercoledi]

#2 definitely

1 is pretty, but I don't like the wide prongs or how prominent they are. To me it looks like a repro of an antique ring. Not very delicate in the workmanship.

2 seems to be a good fit for unique/antique/not too wierd. Any more info on the stone?

3 I love Leon as much as the next person, but I'm afraid halos are a bit of a fad (no offence to anyone who loves them) and it's too hard to guess if that would please your GF. Add the color of the stone (again, a personal preference) and it seems like a risk.

So is it 2 then?

 

[oshinbreez]

What size ring does she wear?

 

[eugenewood]

She wears a size 6. From what I can tell on the websites, #1 has a great return policy. #2 has a 3-day (!!!??) return poicy with a 5% restocking fee. I'm not sure on #3.

 

[mercoledi]

Sadly #3 has no return policy. Maisie almost bought that ring but is in the UK and couldn't see it before owning it.

Maybe you could talk to the people at #2 about extending that policy? Perhaps (if they have other things you two like) you could exchange for a longer period?

 

[surfgirl]

This wont help but I prefer the one mercoledi posted at the bottom of page 4 the best. Then #2. While I love Leon''s rings, I dont think your gf will be happy with the O color...

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/17/2007 5:31:30 PM
Author: eugenewood
She wears a size 6. From what I can tell on the websites, #1 has a great return policy. #2 has a 3-day (!!!??) return poicy with a 5% restocking fee. I''m not sure on #3.

I think that a 3 day return policy isn''t the end of the world. While not the most customer friendly policy, I think that if you get it you''ll know whether you love it or not when it arrives. Just forces people who are indecisive to make a decision!

 

[eugenewood]

Yeah, 3 days is enough time to decide, but at $200 to restock you''d think they would give you a break.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 5/17/2007 6:03:14 PM
Author: eugenewood
Yeah, 3 days is enough time to decide, but at $200 to restock you''d think they would give you a break.

You *could* ask them if they''d send it to an appraiser ... instead of you ... w/o a restocking fee. You''d end up spending $100-$200 on the appraiser though so it doesn''t really help that much.

I can kinda understand the restocking fee if its a one-of-a-kind item ... it takes it out of their stock for a few days & potentially costs them other sales. Not like multiple version items where if people call they just send *another* one.

You could fly to San Fran or wherever Lang is & check it out in person! Though that''ll cost way more than $200 probs.

 

[mercoledi]

Date: 5/17/2007 5:59:40 PM
Author: surfgirl
This wont help but I prefer the one mercoledi posted at the bottom of page 4 the best. Then #2. While I love Leon''s rings, I dont think your gf will be happy with the O color...

(Me too, that with a 0.7 ish ACA is still under 4K, maybe under 3K with a little luck. That''s what I''d want. Unless there was an OEC/OMC to be had...)

 

[sputat]

#2

 

[cinnamon013]

Date: 5/17/2007 4:44:26 PM
Author: eugenewood
Point taken on the princess cut. OK, if you guys had to pick from the following:

http://antiqueengagementrings.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=1555

http://www.tias.com/9207/PictPage/1923096322.html

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=320

Which one, and why? The third one would be the bravest choice, for the color and size of it, but I cant argue that its beautiful. This could be the final three.

#2 for sure. That is one heck of a beautiful ring, at a great price.

 

[winternight]

I don''t like #1 for the reasons others have said, it doesn''t look well made, the design, etc.

#2 is amazing, really a beautiful ring and it looks like its great quality. Good find Deco! Its also a very feminine ring, one thing I''ve noticed is guys sometimes pick thick bands because their fingers are bigger then on their fiance''s finger the band can look clunky and a little masculine.

#3 is also gorgous, to me it does look a little bit more like a cocktail or right hand ring and it is the sort of ring that some women would love as an engagement ring, but your fiance would have to try it on and see it. The no return thing is a huge problem.

ETA - #2 is sold! Did you get it? I hope so.

 

[eugenewood]

Yes, it sold. But, good news, they make that setting and can reproduce it for me. Does anyone have any experience with Doyle & Doyle?

 

[mrssalvo]

From what I''ve read here, (do a search on Doyle and Doyle) they are a very fine company.

 

[eugenewood]

Thats good to know. I searched and saw them recommended to a few posters. Does anyone have any first-hand experience with settings they make themselves? I want to make sure they do quality work, as their return policy is not great. Thanks again.

 

[yellowsparkles]

Date: 5/21/2007 3:41:05 PM
Author: eugenewood
Thats good to know. I searched and saw them recommended to a few posters. Does anyone have any first-hand experience with settings they make themselves? I want to make sure they do quality work, as their return policy is not great. Thanks again.

Eugenewood, you may want to start a new thread asking specifically about this vendor.
I hope it works out for you - lovely ring!

 

[eugenewood]

I''m in the process of seeing if I can get that ring made, but too much reasearch on this site into diamond statistics (its addictive!) has made me really want to pick out a stone myself (prefereably a round brilliant). I really like the antique style, but I understand why they stopped with the old euro cut stones. With that in mind, I went back to the usual suspects listed on this site and tried to find a ring that had an antiquey look, and paired it with a stone I liked. This was the result:

Click Here

What do you guys think of something like that. I really really like being able to pick a stone, I just wish the bigger sites had more antique looking settings. Here are the stats on that stone:

This GIA certified stone is a beautiful Round cut, 0.8 carat weight, H in color, VS2 clarity. And, of course, all of our diamonds are backed by our 100% quality guarantee.
Carat Weight: 0.80
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Depth%: 60
Table %: 58
Symmetry: VG
Polish: VG
Girdle: VTN-STK
Culet: N
Fluorescence: S
Measurements: 6.04-6.09x3.64
Cut Grade: Ideal

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 5/22/2007 7:37:40 PM
Author: eugenewood
I''m in the process of seeing if I can get that ring made, but too much reasearch on this site into diamond statistics (its addictive!) has made me really want to pick out a stone myself (prefereably a round brilliant). I really like the antique style, but I understand why they stopped with the old euro cut stones.

With all due respect eugene, I''m not sure what you mean by this but my antique transitional cut blows away 99.9% of the new round brilliants I''ve seen in person, hands down, not even a contest. They are completely different cuts with completely different results. The new RBs throw white light back AT you in spikey shards. The old cuts have nice juicy facets that DRAW your eye deep into the stone, much like an EC or Asscher, and shower your eyes with more fire bursts and laser beams than you could ever imagine.

Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of people here with gorgeous RBs, but the old cuts aren''t chopped liver, my friend...

 

[eugenewood]

surfgirl, how large is your antique transitional cut? Also, where did you find it?

 

[surfgirl]

Eugene, my ering is a 2.47ctw center stone and I found it in a small estate jewelry shop (I also have a 1.15ctw Transitional Cut that I inherited with the same amazing scintillation and fire as my ering). You can find some extraordinary old stones in estate shops but you have to know they're good shops and in my opinion, you have to see them in person, not online because they all have different qualities. The Old Mine Cuts vs. Old European Cuts vs. Transitional Cuts - each has qualities that some prefer over others.

But my above point was only that the old cuts can actually out perform the new cuts in some ways, but you have to love the way old cuts look. Otherwise, just stay with new RBs in an antique/repro setting and you'll be fine. It's a matter of visual taste I think, but to be honest, there are many of us here that are wondering why they ever bothered to change the way they used to cut...because there is something magical in some of the old cuts that just cannot be replicated in an Ideal cut. IMHO, of course

All that said, I haven't gotten the impression that it's the old cut stones that you and your gf are attracted to, but rather the antique-style settings, or am I mistaken? Some of the links given have had old cuts, and some old settings with new RBs, and some have been new reproduction style settings with new RBs. I suppose you need to decide if it's the setting that you want antique, or the stone, or both, or just the look of antique but with a modern cut stone. Lots of choices there!

 

[chrono]

Old cuts are very different in appearance and also how they return light. Old cut stones have larger facets which return more and larger sized coloured light (fire). It is my personal preference for old cut stones but others like a more modern stone. There are also many well cut OECs.

As an example, see my old thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-opinion-on-ideal-scope-picture.41599/

The idealscopes which are not picture perfect compared to modern RBs, is nothing to scoff at either. However, that look may not be what you are looking for, which is also fine. It isn't everyone's cup of tea.

The diamond you posted does not have enough information for us to tell you if it is a good performer or not. We also need the crown and pavilon information from the GIA cert. Still, with such a large table, I would pass on it. Not to mention the VThin girdle.

 

[eugenewood]

Ok, after reading through this while post again, I think i''ve come to a decision. I''m gonna go with this setting (posted by mercoledi on the bottom of page 4):

http://antiqueengagementrings.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?page=2 . Its number L1005, anyone have any comments about the quality of the craftsmanship or anything I should know?

I agree with what you guys are saying about the older cuts, and I think the RB is the way to go since I wont be seeing it in person before buying. I was considering these stones:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131&item=1027619
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?b=16&a=12&c=77&cid=131&item=860085
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2959/

Comments? They all look good, but I dont know if the prices are fair. Woohoo! I picked a ring! Were almost there!

 

[climb2cloud9]

prices are fair... go with one of the James Allen because of the H color. I would also consider going down in clarity and bumping up in to G in color but make sure the stone is "eye clean". Nice setting. Good luck!