Torn between Mark Morell Petite Torchiere and Orginal Torchiere...help!

[edmontonflora]

I thought I was certain that I wanted the Petite and have already wired Mark the money. Now I''m looking at some of the pictures on here of the Petite and am worried that it''s too narrow at the crown and maybe too dainty all around. I have emailed him and he said that both were 2mm at the crown(original band is 3mm and petite is 2.5mm). If both are the same at the crown(2mm), should I just stay with the petite? I ask because I want the band to be proportional to my stone and finger as well as be a balanced look once I get a wedding band(don''t want the two rings together to be taking over my finger).

For reference my diamond is 1.09 carats and my ring size is 4.5

I''ve looked at tons of pictures of those rings on here and still can''t decide. They are both so similar. Some pictures I see of the petite look perfect and others make the band appear too thin all around. Help!

 

[TopSecret]

I have a petite w/ a 1.06 stone on a size ~6. It''s great, definitely not too thin. Pictures on a screen are different than in person.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 11/11/2008 2:22:08 PM
Author:edmontonflora
I thought I was certain that I wanted the Petite and have already wired Mark the money. Now I''m looking at some of the pictures on here of the Petite and am worried that it''s too narrow at the crown and maybe too dainty all around. I have emailed him and he said that both were 2mm at the crown(original band is 3mm and petite is 2.5mm). If both are the same at the crown(2mm), should I just stay with the petite? I ask because I want the band to be proportional to my stone and finger as well as be a balanced look once I get a wedding band(don''t want the two rings together to be taking over my finger).


For reference my diamond is 1.09 carats and my ring size is 4.5


I''ve looked at tons of pictures of those rings on here and still can''t decide. They are both so similar. Some pictures I see of the petite look perfect and others make the band appear too thin all around. Help!

With your ring size, I think the petite will be gorgeous! The stone will pop pop pop and since you''ve said you don''t want your rings together to take up lots of your finger, go with the thinner option! The only real differences I can tell are 1) the width and (as a result) 2) the amount of taper (with the petite''s taper being more subtle because it''s a thinner band).

But seriously, they are both breathtaking--you can''t go wrong!! Please post pics when you get it--it''s my dream setting!!

 

[edmontonflora]

Thanks TS. I saw one of you ring profile pictures. Such a pretty ring. Would you have any other hand shots by any chance. Right now Mark has pulled my project until I make up my mind and I''m trying to figure it out asap. I think hand shots from the top will really help me in deciding if I want to go with the original or the petite. I can''t believe how hard this decision is

.

 

[edmontonflora]

Thanks Gwendolyn. My only reservation with going ahead with the petite is that when I''ve looked at photos on here of the petite, I''ve found myself thinking that the band was too thin for some of the photos. Whereas with the original, I''ve never found myself thinking that it was too thick/wide. Then again, I think there are more handshots of the petite on here than the original(most of the originals I looked at were from the Sunburst, which as you know has the same band as the torchiere).

I wish I could get a side by side handshot comparison of the two with similar diamonds and ring sizes...I think that''s the only way that I''ll be able to decide since both rings are so, so similar. Sigh.

 

[gwendolyn]

wishful''s thread: her stone is larger but there are handshots! https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-mark-morrell-petite-torchiere.96207/

Also, related thread, someone asking the same question: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/petite-or-not-too-mwm-torchiere.96439/

 

[TopSecret]

I don't have any other handshots at the moment than the one I posted somewhere on this site, but I'll try and snap some tonight when I see my fiance. Check back later.

actually, here's one more, albeit still not from the top...

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 11/11/2008 2:50:06 PM
Author: edmontonflora
Thanks Gwendolyn. My only reservation with going ahead with the petite is that when I''ve looked at photos on here of the petite, I''ve found myself thinking that the band was too thin for some of the photos. Whereas with the original, I''ve never found myself thinking that it was too thick/wide. Then again, I think there are more handshots of the petite on here than the original(most of the originals I looked at were from the Sunburst, which as you know has the same band as the torchiere).


I wish I could get a side by side handshot comparison of the two with similar diamonds and ring sizes...I think that''s the only way that I''ll be able to decide since both rings are so, so similar. Sigh.

Some things to consider: the length of your fingers. If you have especially long, elegant fingers, just go for the regular. Also, jewelry stores have rings of all different widths in stock. Go in and ask to try on some 3mm band rings and some 2.5mm rings. THEN, try them on paired with wedding bands of whatever widths you are considering. That will give you the best idea of how it will look on your finger without having to have the custom piece. You can also find very cheap bands of varying widths on eBay--I think a few of our members have gone this route and spent maybe $5 or $10.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 11/11/2008 2:56:57 PM
Author: TopSecret
I don''t have any other handshots at the moment than the one I posted somewhere on this site, but I''ll try and snap some tonight when I see my fiance. Check back later.


actually, here''s one more, albeit still not from the top...

That baby needs a thread all of her own. Please?

 

[Rhea]

Gwen brought up a good point with wedding bands. If you plan to wear a wedding band, take that into consideration when choosing the width of the ring as well.

 

[TopSecret]

Date: 11/11/2008 3:03:07 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 11/11/2008 2:56:57 PM

Author: TopSecret

I don't have any other handshots at the moment than the one I posted somewhere on this site, but I'll try and snap some tonight when I see my fiance. Check back later.



actually, here's one more, albeit still not from the top...

That baby needs a thread all of her own. Please?

It has one somewhere in the SMTR section, although there's not much more than you've seen. That collage pic that's floating around w/ the ring from every angle is this ring.

One reason I went w/ the Petite was indeed b/c of how it'd look w/ a mate band... good point to consider. 5mm of total combined band width (assuming both widths are the same). The normal Torchiere + band would add an extra 1mm, which isn't insignificant.

 

[bee]

Hi Ednomontonflora

I know exactly what you''re going through. I created the petite or not to thread. I went through the same thing and in the end I chose the regular torchiere for my 1.02 stone size 5.5 finger. It was a tough choice. The best idea is to do as Gwendolyn suggested; however I took a leap of faith and ordered the regular based off of sunburst pictures and petite torchiere pictures...BUT most of all my conversation with Mark. He convinced me to go with the regular, in large part, due to the ability to be able to SEE the curves more in the regular as opposed to the petite version. He made the symmetry to a woman''s body....Mark is really a neat person.

Anywho, I''m awaiting my ring and it''s pure agony but I should have it by the end of this month. I''ll be sure to post plenty of pictures as this is a tough decision.... I know.

Ultimately, if you like THIN bands go for the petite; however if you don''t have an affinity I would choose the regular. Of course I''m biased, but really you CAN''T go wrong!

 

[bee]

https://www.pricescope.com/forum/show-me-the-ring/my-mark-morrell-sunburst-t67595.html

This post was helpful for me.

 

[Bia]

oooh Petite, Petite, Petite!!!

They are both gorgeous, but I just love the MM Petite Torchiere. Wishful''s ring is to.die.for!

 

[JulieN]

is it pronounced torsh-iere or tork-iere

 

[edmontonflora]

Thanks everyone for your input thus far. Despite the majority of votes towards the petite, I think I''m actually leaning towards the original...though that may change after I see more of Top Secret''s pics.

Wishful''s pics solidified my decision to go with the torchiere but different shots of her rings have me swaying back and forth between the petite and original. I love the profile shots but the band towards the crown looks a bit thin for me...though it looks beautiful on her long, thin fingers.

Bee, I wish you had your ring now as I''m sure it would help me make a decision! I''ll wait until tomorrow morning for any more suggestions before I get back to Mark.

Thanks for you help so far everyone!

 

[neatfreak]

Another vote for the petite personally...

 

[Ashleigh]

Hi, my ring size is 5.25 and the original Sunburst shank looks substantial yet dainty at the same time on my finger.

 

[edmontonflora]

Any hand shots Ashleigh?? I would REALLY appreciate it!

 

[Ashleigh]

Hi Ed, I remembered wrongly. My finger size is 5 1/8 not 5.25. Initially not knowing that Mark can size up to 1/8 of a size, I said 5.25, but later I got it changed to 5 1/8.

I''m sorry but I don''t have any hand pics since I can''t photograph for nuts. Despite using a good camera, the pics were still grainy. All I could see is blur bright light (center stone). But I think you can looked under ladyciel and see her photos as I referenced hers when I was deciding too.

I''m not sure abt the Torchiere. But for Sunburst, though the shank is 2.5mm, shank tapers towards the crown so it still looks dainty to me.

Hope to see your pics soon.

 

[edmontonflora]

Ashleigh, if your shank is 2.5mm then you have the petite right? Thanks for trying to take pics...my skills are probably quite similar to yours LOL.

 

[Ashleigh]

Hi Ed, I''m so sorry. I ordered the original Sunburst and paid $2100 for it. The prices on the website has changed so I''m not sure which I paid for (original or petite). I tried measuring my shank but I can''t really tell since the shank is pretty rounded (comfort fit). Sorry that I''m no help here.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 11/12/2008 2:12:19 AM
Author: Ashleigh
Hi Ed, I'm so sorry. I ordered the original Sunburst and paid $2100 for it. The prices on the website has changed so I'm not sure which I paid for (original or petite). I tried measuring my shank but I can't really tell since the shank is pretty rounded (comfort fit). Sorry that I'm no help here.

You can measure the inside of the ring at its widest to find out if it's 2.5mm or 3mm. Should be flatter on the inside, jah?

I still think pictures aren't going to be enough--other people have different fingers, making one style of ring look differently perhaps to how it might look on you. Since you're only worried about the shank of the band and nothing else about the design, I think your best bet will be just to try on rings of those widths to see how they look on your hand, especially with wedding bands, since you're concerned with how much of your finger the rings will take up! But I will say no more.

JulieN, I don't say it either of those ways--I say "torch-ee-air." Not as elegant a pronunciation as the ring itself.