eternity band with "rough" edges

[riogems]

Date: 4/29/2006 12:24:45 AM

... although since I had not thought of the original possibility that I''d get something noticeably inferior, is it out of the question to think that the next attempt might be noticeably superior? just a thought...

I think this depends on the actual jeweler that makes it. It definitely can''t be the work of the same guy that made your other one. But obviously, this one is going to subject to intense scrutiny before being shipped to you.

 

[Sunnygal]

Andrew, Please provide us with an update. Did you receive your new ring? How does it look?

 

[andrewSD]

Wow, you all have sixth sense for this stuff... The new WF ring just arrived yesterday. Haven''t had time to do the pictures yet, but I will tomorrow or this weekend. Until then, I won''t spoil it by trying to describe the comparison in text.

 

[BeaudryBabe]

Geez, I late on this one, but I am with Mara too...really interesting thread. Gosh, now I am analyizing my eternity bands and it''s making me crazy.

Thanks for sharing the info, glad Whiteflash stepped up to the plate.

 

[andrewSD]

Comparison picture #1

 

[andrewSD]

comparison picture #2 (same as before, slightly zoomed).

Overall from this view (in the pictures or in person) I think it''s pretty hard to tell the difference.

 

[andrewSD]

Here is the view of the WF #2 ring overall. I won''t bother doing the SP and WF #2 side-by-side because the dimensions of #2 are pretty much the same as the first, i.e., it''s just a shade "taller" than the SP ring.

 

[andrewSD]

Okay, this is a zoom of the last picture. This is the one area that -- under magnification -- appeared to me to have some asymmetry. Starting from the top/right and going counterclockwise, the #2 diamond (or the slot holding that diamond) appears a shade smaller to me. Again, this probably isn''t visible to the naked untrained eye.

The only other thing that I think separates the two rings is the profile side-view. If you look back at the SP photos, they are very uniform semicircles. Quite attractive, both magnified and unmagnified. Both WF ring profiles have, IMHO, been less attractive (which I would notice with the naked eye only in a side-by-side comparison) and in some cases uneven (which I would only notice under magnification). Examples of the unevenness are in the zoomed picture below, #1 (slanted to the right) and #3 (dips at the left side). There are probably a handful of examples of this on the WF #2, but again I only notice this under magnification. Admittedly the parts of the rings that I''ve photographed and my guesses at "flaws" are subjective, and I guess you''ll just have to believe me that the SP ring underwent a similar degree of scrutiny.

And finally, what are we going to do? Well, we''re leaning toward keeping WF #2. We''d feel comfortable keeping either of these rings, but in the side-by-side my fiancee says WF #2 feels and looks just a shade better. Me, I see less of a difference but who am I to argue? And on one last note, we''d be happy going with either WF or SP in the future. Of course, I spent a lot more time on this whole process than I would have wanted, but given the good-to-great customer service, I''ll give them the benefit of the doubt that my experience was an extreme outlier.

Thanks all for your helpful comments on this thread and the many others I read, and I''m glad I could finally contribute something to the community as well!

 

[mrssalvo]

thanks for the update andrew. I''m glad things worked out to your satisfaction. I for one would love to see some hand shots of your fiancess gorgeous new wedding band

 

[MissGotRocks]

Andrew thanks for coming back with more pictures.

First and foremost is that the lady be pleased with the ring. If she is happy with it then you will be happy too! Sounds like the differences between the two rings are slight; however, there is enough of a difference in one of them to help make her decision.

While I realize the photos are highly magnified, the workmanship is still not right on in my book. Without the magnification, the ring may look just fine. The head on shots compared with the SP ring look much better than the first though. Sounds like WF worked hard to make you happy - if they accomplished that then the story has a happy ending!

 

[Mara]

i personally like the profile side view of the SP ring more than the WF style...just because i prefer the curvier scalloped look to the straight edged kinda thing.

that said, those magnified pictures are UGLY. hahahaa. they make the diamonds in both the rings look like poo! yak.

it always bothers me to see super magnified shots of rings like this, because i feel like absolutely nothing comes out the visual winner regardless of style, brand, diamond quality etc. that's not regular viewing, so to me it just plain doesn't make sense to look at rings that way and try to figure out which is 'better'. 'better' is what looks good on your hand as long as the ring is well-made and doesn't fall apart.

it's kind of like the 40x mag pictures we see of diamonds on here...or when people blow them up and go 'see that tiny mark there!! what does it mean?!'. regular viewing environments people! it's the new black.

 

[andrewSD]

Date: 5/13/2006 8:49:05 PM
Author: Mara
it''s kind of like the 40x mag pictures we see of diamonds on here...or when people blow them up and go ''see that tiny mark there!! what does it mean?!''. regular viewing environments people! it''s the new black.

Point well taken. However, I will say that the "resolution" of our eyes is *much* higher than the resolution of our computer screens. If I posted a picture that was actual size (approximately 1 inch wide), then it would be a mere 72 pixels across on your screen which probably wouldn''t be very useful. My intent in showing "magnified" views was to better approximate the level of detail that you would see if you were holding the ring yourself. Granted, these particular pictures may be too far on that extreme (details seen here that you wouldn''t see with the naked eye), but I think we all can agree that some degree of magnification is necessary if the picture is to have any meaning at all...

 

[andrewSD]

Date: 5/13/2006 8:49:05 PM
Author: Mara
i personally like the profile side view of the SP ring more than the WF style...just because i prefer the curvier scalloped look to the straight edged kinda thing.

Oh, one other note. Both WF rings were actually *more* curvy on the sides than the SP ring. I checked this after I posted my last pictures because it confused me why those profile pictures looked so much better on the SP ring. It's because the extra curves in the WF rings act like little wide-angle lenses, catching all sorts of other details in the room. The SP was relatively flatter, so reflections were limited to the mini-studio I created (dominated by the big white flash source).

Again, something that you'd probably have to see in person...

 

[Mara]

Date: 5/13/2006 9:57:55 PM
Author: andrewSD

Date: 5/13/2006 8:49:05 PM
Author: Mara
it's kind of like the 40x mag pictures we see of diamonds on here...or when people blow them up and go 'see that tiny mark there!! what does it mean?!'. regular viewing environments people! it's the new black.

Point well taken. However, I will say that the 'resolution' of our eyes is *much* higher than the resolution of our computer screens. If I posted a picture that was actual size (approximately 1 inch wide), then it would be a mere 72 pixels across on your screen which probably wouldn't be very useful. My intent in showing 'magnified' views was to better approximate the level of detail that you would see if you were holding the ring yourself. Granted, these particular pictures may be too far on that extreme (details seen here that you wouldn't see with the naked eye), but I think we all can agree that some degree of magnification is necessary if the picture is to have any meaning at all...

Andrew...I totally agree our eyes pick up more than can be translated in the 'life size' shot from a camera. The only reason I said that about the mag thing is that I of course cannot see as magnified as my camera can take pictures. Now that I am snapping away at my new bauble every other hour of the day, when I put the pictures on my computer, the magnification is INSANE. I see tons of things my actual eye does not. But I actually WEAR the ring on my hand and I don't see 1/2 of what the camera is capturing. It can make people crazy seeing the tiny nuances that your eye doesn't even pick up magnified and some of us PS'ers are just obsessive enough to check every tiny detail of things...that's why I prefer not to mag things too closely, I want things to still be mind-clean.

Another way of putting it is to magnify a supermodel's face to 50x or 80x and she wouldn't be very attractive either!

 

[Mara]

Date: 5/13/2006 10:08:55 PM
Author: andrewSD

Date: 5/13/2006 8:49:05 PM
Author: Mara
i personally like the profile side view of the SP ring more than the WF style...just because i prefer the curvier scalloped look to the straight edged kinda thing.

Oh, one other note. Both WF rings were actually *more* curvy on the sides than the SP ring. I checked this after I posted my last pictures because it confused me why those profile pictures looked so much better on the SP ring. It's because the extra curves in the WF rings act like little wide-angle lenses, catching all sorts of other details in the room. The SP was relatively flatter, so reflections were limited to the mini-studio I created (dominated by the big white flash source).

Again, something that you'd probably have to see in person...

I know what you mean, because my new head on my ring has those same slightly curvy edges to it and in certain lighting it catches reflections of things so that when the images are super magnified to 7x or whatever, it looks like the head has a myriad of tiny scratches, but in reality it's smooth. But that's only at SUPER DUPER magnification if the picture is mondo sized. Pictures can definitely be misleading when they are that size.