Visited Leon Mege, Taffin, Garrard, Cartier, etc.

[diamondseeker2006]

I really think she needs to rethink the matching wedding band idea. There is no way to have a wedding band that goes with a delicate micropave ring that would also work as a larger man''s band. You need to have her wedding band made by the person who makes the e-ring at the same time so she doesn''t have to send the wedding band back later. You should choose a wedding band that fits your personal style. They can both be in platinum and that would be enough similarity. And I wouldn''t consider a shank less than 2mm for a ring. 2mm is very thin as it is.

Fine milgraining can be so delicate that you need a loupe to see it. I think it adds a beautiful, soft look to a ring.

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 6/19/2007 12:33:33 PM
Author: fanboy

Date: 6/19/2007 12:29:27 PM

Author: mrssalvo


i wouldn''t be surprised if years down the road he is more well known and his pieces will hold their value and be worth more. Maybe not, but at least, in my opinion, his craftmanship will stand the test of time.

In that scenario, I bet he wouldn''t have a problem adding the marking later. At any rate, this is becoming moot since Garrard and Cartier have gone AWOL and I don''t hear the phone ringing from an James de Givenchy anxious to lower his price.


For curiosity sake though, how much value would going with Taffin add to my ring, assuming all else is equal?

Are you planning on selling this ring? I''m confused why all the discussion about investment values on an ering because let''s face it - the only person an ering is really valuable to is the person who receives it. I personally would never look at an ering as any sort of investment that will accrue over time. If you ever do have to sell it for whatever reason, a buyer will try to give you as little as possible anyway. Having said that, to not have a maker''s mark on a ring seems odd to me if it''s being custom made. It''s like buying a painting and asking the artist not to sign his/her work. I''m not really sure why you wouldn''t want a maker''s mark on a custom made ring.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 6/19/2007 8:04:52 AM
Author: fanboy
From my understanding of three-sided micro-pave, the danger is not that stones wil fall off by themselves while the ring sits there, but that through daily usage one or two may come loose. This doesn''t bother me with regard to preserving the ring as an heirloom.

Maybe some pictures will illustrate "the danger" more helpfully ...
Mangled Mege.

Not much metal + many holes = fragile. The thinner it is, the more diamonds in it, the more fragile it is (IMO). Not saying you shouldn''t get what you want ... you just might CHANGE what you want when you realize the true risks of your chosen combo (1.5mm, three sided pave, possibly worn on (gasp) right hand)....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I cannot imagine having Leon Mege make a ring and not want his mark in it! That would be like a contemporary of Rembrandt saying, oh, don''t bother signing the painting since you''re not all that well known anyway.

 

[fanboy]

Date: 6/19/2007 1:35:00 PM
Author: decodelighted

Maybe some pictures will illustrate ''the danger'' more helpfully ...
Mangled Mege.

Thanks for the warning, but to be fair, the first example was a WF ring. Aren''t those cast, not hand-made? The second, the Mege ring, was subjected to traumatic impact.

I totally get that there is always the risk of such things happening. Others seem to live with it though.

As far as not having the maker leave his mark, I don''t see why that''s the biggest problem. If I were chiefly concerned about collector value, then I''d keep the mark there. But if what I''m predominantly interested in is a impeccably made and designed ring, then the mark isn''t that important at all. There are plenty of artworks that are unsigned since they are have obvious merit and obviously pertain to a particular artist''s style.

There''s no need for confusion with regard to my interest in collector value. Someone else pointed out that it would be affected by who I hire and whether they leave their mark on the ring. I was merely curious about what value increase I''d see from using a firm like Taffin; it is in no way determinative of my decision one way or another.

 

[allycat0303]

I have to agree with Deco. Well my ring made by Leon Mege (it has a 2mm band, 3 sided pave) was NOT subjected to any trauma, whatsoever, and I loss 2 diamonds on the band (actually I barely wore it to school). And one from the halo, the stone was loss even before I recieved the ring. I don''t think that it has to do with ordinary wear. I''m actually a little stunned that he said he would do a 1.5 mm band for 3 sided pave. I''ve worked with him, and so have 2 of my friends and he clearly stated '''' I will not do under 2mm, it will be 2 mm but will look asthetically like less then 2 mm'''' So I''m wondering why he reversed his position. He was very, very adament about that.

I would consider a 1-sided pave for 1.5 mm, but not a 3 sided pave having had a rampant problem with stones falling out a 2 mm.

 

[fanboy]

Date: 6/19/2007 3:14:16 PM
Author: allycat0303

I would consider a 1-sided pave for 1.5 mm, but not a 3 sided pave having had a rampant problem with stones falling out a 2 mm.

The damage to the rings shown above were not merely loose melee, but fracturing and bending of the rings themselves. I understand that a stone or two may come loose over time through normal usage. In other words, I don't think you'll be seeing your ring bend in half without some kind of trauma. On the other hand, the spontaneous fracturing of the WF ring is appalling, but it's cast not handmade.

I'm not doing 1.5mm. I was just pointing out that Leon could do 1.5 mm and showed me an example. He suggested closer to 1.7 mm.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 6/19/2007 2:45:33 PM
Author: fanboy

Date: 6/19/2007 1:35:00 PM
Author: decodelighted
Maybe some pictures will illustrate ''the danger'' more helpfully ...

Thanks for the warning, but to be fair, the first example was a WF ring. Aren''t those cast, not hand-made? The second, the Mege ring, was subjected to traumatic impact.

My point was that the biggest "danger" wasn''t one or two stones falling out. I thought it would help you to see "real damage" & understand the type of accidents that can happen. Of course if you have insurence you''ll probably be fine financially -- get the whole ring replaced as Snapdragon did --- yet people feel so sentimentally toward e-rings not having the "original" can be a huge emotional event.

Basically - people are saying that 1.5 mm, three sided pave is TOO dangerous. TOO risky. Not worth the potential downsides. If it''s the ONLY look that appeals to you -- or, perhaps more importantly: HER ... not much we say is gonna dissuade you. We''ll just hope for the best & wait anxiously for pictures!

 

[fanboy]

Date: 6/19/2007 3:27:39 PM
Author: decodelighted

Basically - people are saying that 1.5 mm, three sided pave is TOO dangerous. TOO risky. Not worth the potential downsides. If it''s the ONLY look that appeals to you -- or, perhaps more importantly: HER ... not much we say is gonna dissuade you. We''ll just hope for the best & wait anxiously for pictures!

I mentioned that Leon could do 1.5 mm and that I''d seen an example of it, but I never said I wanted a band quite so narrow. Leon and I were discussing something closer to 1.7 mm if micro-pave, and 1.8 mm if bright-cut.

 

[winternight]

Well Garrard in NYC is just flaky. I had a good SA there but I''m pretty sure that she''s left. Had loads of fun with her...bought a little something...went back and had a terrible time.

For something this custom why don''t you just take her around places, after you figure out your buget? I imagine that would be really fun.

 

[fanboy]

Date: 6/19/2007 8:42:45 PM
Author: winternight
Well Garrard in NYC is just flaky. I had a good SA there but I''m pretty sure that she''s left. Had loads of fun with her...bought a little something...went back and had a terrible time.

For something this custom why don''t you just take her around places, after you figure out your buget? I imagine that would be really fun.

Very flaky. I wonder if the organization in London knows that they are being so poorly represented in NYC. The boutique has very little to see and isn''t very tastefully decorated. Even if they were trying to be avante garde, they could have done it more intelligently (''Hard rock!'' in giant block print on the walls is more assinine and banal than it is provocative). It feels like the NYC iteration of the company is missing a brain.

She wants to be surprised; trust me on that one. Anyway, I''ve picked out jewelry for her before, so we are in-line when it comes to taste and expectations. At any rate, I''m not doing anything wild with the basic design, and I didn''t get a funky stone, so it can''t go that wrong.