99.9% Thrilled, Overjoyed, Elated...Pics Galore

[Mara]

WF was able to take my same head and plunk a much bigger diamond in and fix it to look stunning, so I am sure your jeweler can do whatever you want with that head, Dem. And if he can''t...find someone who can.

 

[kittykat]

Demelza,
That stone is amazing and it looks beautiful with your eteernity band.

 

[cutes814]

*GASP* I swear my heart stopped beating when I scrolled down and saw that first shot of the ring! After 10 mins, I'm slowly starting to get my breath back.

Dem, that is a humungo, gorgeous, fabuloso, yummy, beautiful, ginormous, drop-dead-have-to-stop-breathing-and-sigh stone!!!!

OMG, lovin the first pic. You are quite a photographer. Congrats on the wonderful upgrade!!

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/18/2005 2:04:35 PM
Author: Diamonds4Me

Date: 8/18/2005 1:08:02 PM
Author: sjz

Date: 8/18/2005 12:00:42 PM
Author: Demelza
So I wonder what Val meant that it would be hard to lower the stone. And what did my jeweler mean? I''m confused!

I think that might mean since the seats for the stone have already been cut into the prongs, it''s going to be tricky to redo them. I''m not sure it it''s possible to lower the setting from the base, it seems to me like it could mess up the whole head. The jeweler might have to recut the seats, and if there is enough metal left above that for the prongs to cover the stone securely, it could work. Are the prongs pretty substantial? They look like it from the pictures, but pictures can also be deceiving. You might just end up getting a whole new head on the ring, exactly like the one you have, only with the seats cut lower. I guess you''ll just have to wait and see what the jeweler says next week.

Well, now I''m wondering if my jeweler even ''cut'' mine down. For all I know he may have just popped it right into another setting identical to it but shorter prongs

ETA: LOL Ame! Too funny

Feydakin has a good article about setting a stone in a four prong setting on his website. Reading that might give you a good idea of what''s involved in setting a stone. It''s not a huge leap after reading that and looking at the illustrations to imagine how it might be tricky to lower a stone that''s already been set.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/18/2005 1:48:10 PM
Author: ame

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh I mistyped my comment! dangit. I meant to say EVERY post. heh. Oh well.

I think that is a great bumper sticker....hmmmm...maybe itll look something like this....

OH MY GOD....I''m gasping for air, I''m laughing so hard!

I want one of the stickers from the first print run, ok?

 

[aljdewey]

Mara, you should feel doubly glad, then, that the folks are WF were able to handle such a tricky job for you.

Working with qualified, experienced folks makes all the difference, I''d say.

 

[Maxine]

Demelza, I''ve been thinking about you...............knew you had some butterflies about all this....Glad the stone is SO BEAUTIFUL.....and I just love that look w/the eternity band.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ame]

Date: 8/18/2005 4:27:55 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/18/2005 1:48:10 PM

Author: ame


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh I mistyped my comment! dangit. I meant to say EVERY post. heh. Oh well.


I think that is a great bumper sticker....hmmmm...maybe itll look something like this....

OH MY GOD....I''m gasping for air, I''m laughing so hard!


I want one of the stickers from the first print run, ok?

I might make a special print run for the devoted fans of my insanity. I laughed out loud making that thing. The Husband would totally appreciate that.

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

The bagel pic is hilarious! But the stone is NO joke, absolutely gorgeous!!! So much fire!

 

[moremoremore]

It looks awesome! I love high settings, but I do know what you mean. It''s pretty high. They can probably lower it a bit but too much and it won''t sit flush...
Congrats on an amazing stone!
ps I love the band with it. My favorite look indeed!

 

[sarita]

Congratulations Demelza!!! It turned out great!

What a fabulous first shot you took there, as well

When will you have it set in the diamond band? (Sorry if you mentioned this and I missed it).

I agree that if it is lowered slightly you may feel more comfortable - hopefull less fear too of wacking that puppy on anything!

 

[ame]

I doubt she will be putting it into the diamond setting, I think she is sticking with plain for now.

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/18/2005 4:31:33 PM
Author: aljdewey
Mara, you should feel doubly glad, then, that the folks are WF were able to handle such a tricky job for you.

Working with qualified, experienced folks makes all the difference, I'd say.

I know! So tricky!

Who knew?!

 

[Demelza]

okay, I think I have a better understanding of why it might be difficult to set it much lower. Val's right that it has to do with not being able to pull the prongs apart very far. The reason I think it would be easier with a Solstice head is that they are more "bowl shaped" (for lack of a better description) rather than V-shaped. The reason I didn't go for the Solstice mounting is that it would sit less flush than the V shaped head. So, I guess this is one of those annoying trade-offs. Grrrr...I hate those. I'm hoping my jeweler can monkey around with it some more and just get it down a smidge. That would be great. Just out of curiosity, does anyone have the measurements of their rings from the top of the prongs to the base of the ring? Mine is a whopping 9.7mm.

Sarita -- Ame's right about me not setting my diamond in my old mounting. If you're interested, here's why:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-to-do-what-to-do.32483/

 

[HOUMedGal]

HOLY CRAPOLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is one SPECTACULAR diamond!!! I aspire.

 

[sjz]

Yours is set almost exactly 1mm higher than the diameter of your stone. I remember reading somewhere a while back about proportions, and there was a rule of thumb about how high your stone should be set in relation to the size of the diameter of the stone. The guideline was that the height should be fairly equal to the diameter of your diamond. Yours is pretty darn close, but a little high. I still think it looks good like that, but you have to like it on your finger.

ETA: I just measured mine, and the setting is 7mm high. The diameter of my diamond is 5.96mm.

 

[Dancing Fire]

WOW!!! congrats, that''s a super sparkler.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I am so happy for you! Your ring is absolutely gorgeous! I know you were very apprehensive about the numbers and the color but I am sure now that all your fears have been put to rest. Proof positive that the eyes are the final test.

I wouldn''t lower the stone too much - mine sits very low and I think it sometimes makes the diamond look smaller. Course my setting is basket as well so it does make it look ''squished'' down in.

No matter - the setting is a minor detail - the big news is that you have one gorgeous stone - enjoy!

 

[Demelza]

Date: 8/18/2005 7:51:34 PM
Author: sjz
Yours is set almost exactly 1mm higher than the diameter of your stone. I remember reading somewhere a while back about proportions, and there was a rule of thumb about how high your stone should be set in relation to the size of the diameter of the stone. The guideline was that the height should be fairly equal to the diameter of your diamond. Yours is pretty darn close, but a little high. I still think it looks good like that, but you have to like it on your finger.


ETA: I just measured mine, and the setting is 7mm high. The diameter of my diamond is 5.96mm.

Thanks for that piece of info. That''s interesting. Well, hopefully they will be able to lower it 1 mm. It seems like such a negligible amount, but I suppose it could make a big difference on a ring.

Quick question for those of you who have shared prong wedding rings: Do you find that the diamonds dig a groove into the prongs of the engagement ring? Even after one day, my prongs are all scratched up. Gosh! Diamonds are just hungry and destructive little guys, aren''t they? They eat anything they come into contact with. I have a channel set eternity band with ideal cut stones which would prevent this, of course, but that just doesn''t do it for me the same way the shared prong style does. And it''s not technically my wedding ring. Anyway, it''s a very good thing I don''t have the capability to inspect the ring at 40x mag -- I''d probably have a heart attack.

 

[flower12]

Date: 8/18/2005 7:29:12 PM
Author: Demelza
okay, I think I have a better understanding of why it might be difficult to set it much lower. Val's right that it has to do with not being able to pull the prongs apart very far. The reason I think it would be easier with a Solstice head is that they are more 'bowl shaped' (for lack of a better description) rather than V-shaped. The reason I didn't go for the Solstice mounting is that it would sit less flush than the V shaped head. So, I guess this is one of those annoying trade-offs. Grrrr...I hate those. I'm hoping my jeweler can monkey around with it some more and just get it down a smidge. That would be great. Just out of curiosity, does anyone have the measurements of their rings from the top of the prongs to the base of the ring? Mine is a whopping 9.7mm.

Sarita -- Ame's right about me not setting my diamond in my old mounting. If you're interested, here's why:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-to-do-what-to-do.32483/

mine is about 12mm( top of the prong to base of the ring )
my old setting was much lower than this setting which was my order
I was recommend to not the much go to lower but I did.

it was about 6.8mm( I just mesared and might be bit diffrent)
however, the lower setting hiting my w ring. so I did change to higher
this time my jweler decided the high.
at bigining, I thought it's too high and makes the stone looks smaller.
but everybody told me looksmuch bigger than my old lower setting.

here is the pic of my ring with SP's eternity

I don't remenber what's the diameter because all paper work is at safty box.
around 9.3mm? ?I guess

 

[flower12]

this is old setting and new one.
about old one , bottom of diamond almost touching on my finger and hitting to w- band's diamond.
that's the reason why I changed the setting.

your setting and mine is very close I think,
what's deffrence is about space under the diamond (between the culet and setting)
mine is about 1mm .how mm your space?

 

[flower12]

sorry

I fotgot to attach the pic .
here it is.

 

[jadeleaves]

That first shot (the ring, not the bagel!!

) really captured the fiery brilliance of your new rock!

Enjoy

 

[ame]

Date: 8/19/2005 2:11:57 AM
Author: Demelza


Quick question for those of you who have shared prong wedding rings: Do you find that the diamonds dig a groove into the prongs of the engagement ring? Even after one day, my prongs are all scratched up. Gosh! Diamonds are just hungry and destructive little guys, aren''t they? They eat anything they come into contact with. I have a channel set eternity band with ideal cut stones which would prevent this, of course, but that just doesn''t do it for me the same way the shared prong style does. And it''s not technically my wedding ring. Anyway, it''s a very good thing I don''t have the capability to inspect the ring at 40x mag -- I''d probably have a heart attack.

You might want to reconsider having that be shared prong then. I have the same ring as Mara and I have no problems with that against my head, the only time really it comes into contact is if I move my hand in a way to make it bang and if they are loose from my being cold.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 8/19/2005 9:11:38 AM
Author: ame

Date: 8/19/2005 2:11:57 AM

Author: Demelza



Quick question for those of you who have shared prong wedding rings: Do you find that the diamonds dig a groove into the prongs of the engagement ring? Even after one day, my prongs are all scratched up. Gosh! Diamonds are just hungry and destructive little guys, aren't they? They eat anything they come into contact with. I have a channel set eternity band with ideal cut stones which would prevent this, of course, but that just doesn't do it for me the same way the shared prong style does. And it's not technically my wedding ring. Anyway, it's a very good thing I don't have the capability to inspect the ring at 40x mag -- I'd probably have a heart attack.

You might want to reconsider having that be shared prong then. I have the same ring as Mara and I have no problems with that against my head, the only time really it comes into contact is if I move my hand in a way to make it bang and if they are loose from my being cold.

Demelza,
I have heard several of the gals here say the shared prong bands scratched their ering metal. Jellybean is one that comes to mind. I think Dancing Fire bought his wife a spacer band because her 5 stone band was eating her solitaire.

 

[mrssalvo]

demelza,

check out preciousjewels new band in mara''s thread here

 

[Demelza]

Thanks for the link, Mrs. S. I actually already have a band like that. I''ll post pictures with my ering to see what you guys think. I don''t like it as much as my shared prong because you see less diamond and more metal, but I guess i can put my wedding ring on my right hand. I''m still debating what to do with my SP credit. I like Mara''s idea of getting thinner eternity rings to flank the wedding band. What do you guys think about these? I don''t think there would be a problem with diamond rubbing because the edges seem smooth.

 

[Demelza]

Flower -- thanks so much for the pic. That was really helpful. I still think my stone sits higher in the setting than yours does. Can't wait till Wednesday to see what the jeweler can do with it. Personally, I think the way mine is set makes the diamond look smaller because it doesn't fill out the head. Does that make sense?

 

[mrssalvo]

I love that band from Signed pieces. I know what you mean about wanting to see more diamonds rather than metal. I feel the same way.

 

[Demelza]

Do you think the diamonds would be so small that they wouldn''t be noticable? The total weight for the band is .34 pt. and I believe there are about 45 diamonds. That means each diamond is probably about .075 points.