Can''t Decide on Which Setting

[chrono]

Here is the back story: I have a 0.88ct OEC which needs a setting. Originally, I wanted an antique setting but found most to be too busy, too paved, too high and too expensive. So I then turned to a simple low set bezel with a very thin band. Now that I have found one of each that I like, I don't know which to choose. Both are very pretty but totally different in looks.

Option 1

Imagine this in 14kt white gold. The band is 2.5mm, with a smooth finish and has milgrain on both edges. The bezel is a thin air-line bezel (there is a thin gap in the bezel where I can clean the pavilon) with milgrain around the edges. The design is quite modern, simple and fluid with the milgrain "softening" the look.

Option 2
I had trouble attaching the picture but managed to paste it right at the bottom. This is a used mounting made of platinum, already correctly sized for a 0.75ct center stone, with a total of 0.32ct of side diamonds. Although sized at 3 1/4, I don't think it will be an issue to size it up to 4.5. I like the softer romantic look of this setting, very antique and it is very well priced (just $50 to $100 more than the 14kt white gold setting shown above

). I also think someone here at Pricescope made a replica of this very setting for her OEC. I can't seem to recall who it is.

Which one should I pick? This is for a RHR. As I said earlier, they are both very different yet beautiful. Option 2 is clearly a better buy with PT and side diamonds, but then again, I was hoping for a bezel setting to protect this older OEC. I don't want to chip the girdle. The cert said the girdle is Thin to Medium. It will not be an everyday ring and will be taken off as soon as I get home.

EDIT:
Good Grief! I edited this post so many times I've lost track.

 

[jetmal]

oohh, I love #2! that one gets my vote. I think it would make a lovely RHR!
tell us what you decide!

 

[jaz464]

I like #1. Simple, sophisticated, very pretty!

 

[chrono]

Oh dear! I just found out that another Pricescoper is expecting to receive Option #2 for review today.

 

[Boom]

Option 2
I had trouble attaching the picture but managed to paste it right at the bottom. This is a used mounting made of platinum, already correctly sized for a 0.75ct center stone, with a total of 0.32ct of side diamonds. Although sized at 3 1/4, I don''t think it will be an issue to size it up to 4.5. I like the softer romantic look of this setting, very antique and it is very well priced (just $50 to $100 more than the 14kt white gold setting shown above

). I also think someone here at Pricescope made a replica of this very setting for her OEC. I can''t seem to recall who it is.

Definitely option 2! That is mrssalvo''s setting that is on consignment with Pearlman''s. It was made by Quest, and just beautiful. Go with platinum, you won''t regret it.

 

[Odilia]

Definitely #2!!!!!

 

[Boom]

Date: 3/17/2006 9:05:01 AM
Author: Chrono
Oh dear! I just found out that another Pricescoper is expecting to receive Option #2 for review today.

Really? That setting has been there for a while and suddenly 2 PSers are interested? What are the odds?

 

[chrono]

Bill Pearlman also told me over the phone that it isn''t safe to resize Option #2 from 3.25 ro 4.5 so I may not have a choice anyway.

Therefore, I have to start looking again. I found some pretty antique style mounting at Engagement Rings Direct. The prices look fabulous for Platinum reproductions. I have never seen other websites advertise them for such low prices when you consider there are a few small side diamonds and engraving down the band too. I am having trouble pasting so I''ll try to link a few that caught my eye. All three mountings are from $645 to $675.

My favourite is the 3rd one. I think all three are low set and the side view appears to show that most of the girdle is well protected.

Now I''m not sure if I should stick with my original 14kt white gold design because for a little more $, I can get some decent antique style setting in platinum. What do you all think? Where else can I shop for antique platinum mounting with such competitive pricing?

 

[chrono]

I managed to get a side view of these mountings from Antique Engagement Rings''s website. They look like the same settings that ERD is offering but ERD is a little cheaper.

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Are all three so beautiful? How do I choose one?

 

[Boom]

#5 would be my choice, but #4 looks lovely as well. #3 looks a little modern to me.

 

[jetmal]

I like option #3, but I LOVE option #5!!!!

 

[Kim N]

Option #3!

 

[FireGoddess]

I love 3 and 5! If you''re looking for more girdle protection - 5 would be the best choice I think!

 

[chrono]

Urgh! I was just reading through the old posts and found that ERD and AER are getting the mountings from the same place AND there are PSers who have not been too pleased with the workmanship: badly done prongs and mounting work, mounted in the wrong mounting, pitted platinum, etc. Now I am getting very worried. I''ve read both rave reviews and scary ones too. What should I do?

 

[Small]

I really like #3 and #5.
If you have questions why not ask ERD about it? That would be the first place I started!

 

[pricescope]

Chrono, in case you would go custom i made a Photoshop for you

 

[Shay37]

Date: 3/17/2006 6:17:58 PM
Author: Pricescope
Chrono, in case you would go custom i made a Photoshop for you

That''s my choice. All the emphasis on the center stone, with the milgrain and the bezel you want. Great job, Irina.

shay

 

[valeria101]

#1, of course. It would be perfect with an old diamond. Even w/o airline, the ring will be super easy to clean from the bottom - otherwise, there's always something like this and this (speaking of the profile view, the front, could be like Irina's drawing).


And I'd probably keep the rounded shank too. I wonder if AGBF would volunteer an underside image of her ring

 

[lmurden]

#2

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/17/2006 9:07:58 AM
Author: Boom

Definitely option 2! That is mrssalvo''s setting that is on consignment with Pearlman''s.

Oh... mssed the story. Is there a thread about the change?

 

[CourtHorn]

I like Irina''s photoshopped one. Or #4, but i have heard not so good things about their settings as well.

 

[ecf8503]

Date: 3/17/2006 9:11:45 AM
Author: Boom

Date: 3/17/2006 9:05:01 AM

Author: Chrono

Oh dear! I just found out that another Pricescoper is expecting to receive Option #2 for review today.

Really? That setting has been there for a while and suddenly 2 PSers are interested? What are the odds?

Date: 3/17/2006 12:45:44 PM
Author: Chrono
Bill Pearlman also told me over the phone that it isn''t safe to resize Option #2 from 3.25 ro 4.5 so I may not have a choice anyway.

That other Pricescoper is me! The ring just got here at about 6:15 tonight...

It is a very nice setting, although there is more about it you should know, Chrono. Yes it was made for Mrs Salvo''s teeny little 3.25 fingers, BUT - she had a 1.1ct OEC in it with a diameter of 6.5mm, which is the size of a modern 1ct RB. I don''t know how Bill came up with the 3/4 ct size, but it could work too. What is the actual diameter of the OEC you have? My RB is 0.74ct, 5.85mm.

Before I had Bill send it to me, I called Quest directly and spoke with Hap, who is one of the creators of the ring. He says there should NOT be a problem in sizing up to a 4.5 (I would likely go up to a 4.75 if I kept it). He says the melee are well seated (I louped it when I got it, and they''re pretty "in there"), and that even if some did loosen during resizing that it should be easy for a skilled benchman with platinum experience to do. He recommended taking it to someone with extensive platinum experience who utilizes a laser for resizing. I asked if he''d be willing to do this - and he said of course, although for a charge (as there would be at almost any place I''d assume). Personally, I''d highly consider sending it to them for any resizing and setting, as they are the ones who made it and are most familiar with it.

That said, I''ll continue to look at it for the rest of the weekend, but as of right now I do not think I will be keeping it, as although it is gorgeous (I LOVE the pics of it that Quest took when they made it!), and it looked fabulous on mrssalvo, I''m not sure it is "the one" for me............

 

[chrono]

Date: 3/17/2006 10:30:27 PM
Author: ecf8503

Date: 3/17/2006 9:11:45 AM
Author: Boom

Date: 3/17/2006 9:05:01 AM

Author: Chrono

Oh dear! I just found out that another Pricescoper is expecting to receive Option #2 for review today.

Really? That setting has been there for a while and suddenly 2 PSers are interested? What are the odds?

Date: 3/17/2006 12:45:44 PM
Author: Chrono
Bill Pearlman also told me over the phone that it isn't safe to resize Option #2 from 3.25 ro 4.5 so I may not have a choice anyway.

That other Pricescoper is me! The ring just got here at about 6:15 tonight...

It is a very nice setting, although there is more about it you should know, Chrono. Yes it was made for Mrs Salvo's teeny little 3.25 fingers, BUT - she had a 1.1ct OEC in it with a diameter of 6.5mm, which is the size of a modern 1ct RB. I don't know how Bill came up with the 3/4 ct size, but it could work too. What is the actual diameter of the OEC you have? My RB is 0.74ct, 5.85mm.

Before I had Bill send it to me, I called Quest directly and spoke with Hap, who is one of the creators of the ring. He says there should NOT be a problem in sizing up to a 4.5 (I would likely go up to a 4.75 if I kept it). He says the melee are well seated (I louped it when I got it, and they're pretty 'in there'), and that even if some did loosen during resizing that it should be easy for a skilled benchman with platinum experience to do. He recommended taking it to someone with extensive platinum experience who utilizes a laser for resizing. I asked if he'd be willing to do this - and he said of course, although for a charge (as there would be at almost any place I'd assume). Personally, I'd highly consider sending it to them for any resizing and setting, as they are the ones who made it and are most familiar with it.

That said, I'll continue to look at it for the rest of the weekend, but as of right now I do not think I will be keeping it, as although it is gorgeous (I LOVE the pics of it that Quest took when they made it!), and it looked fabulous on mrssalvo, I'm not sure it is 'the one' for me............

ECF,
Ahah! So it was you.

So, are you keeping it? I like the design of MrsSalvo's ring but was concerned about the melee diamonds possibly falling out on me in the future. Do you recall how high the ring/diamond sits on the finger? From certain angles, it looks somewhat high. Do you have any dimensions on it?

Irina's beautiful photoshopped picture (thanks, Irina!) and Ana's links have made me go ga-ga over Etienne Perret's settings again. Now I am back to thinking about having him set my OEC in one of his mountings. I just can't seem to decide, can I? However, with the problems that I read about AER's settings recently, I think I'd rather not risk getting one of their mountings.

 

[glitterata]

I'm one of the people with a setting from antiqueengagementrings.com.

I'm satisfied with it, but this is one of those cases where you get what you pay for. It's not all that substantial, and from close up you can see that it was cast, not constructed by hand, and not particularly carefully finished. But it looks very pretty from a reasonable viewing distance, and it holds my diamond without costing an arm and a leg.

How's that for a rave review?

I wonder whether you could have the prongs on the pearlman's setting replaced with a bezel? Then you'd have the best of both worlds.

 

[ecf8503]

ECF,

Ahah! So it was you.

So, are you keeping it? I like the design of MrsSalvo''s ring but was concerned about the melee diamonds possibly falling out on me in the future. Do you recall how high the ring/diamond sits on the finger? From certain angles, it looks somewhat high. Do you have any dimensions on it?

I will not be keeping it - but I have not yet gone to the post office either! So - gimme a little bit to take some pics and measurements for you. I even have a loose CZ that is about 6mm diameter I can drop in it.....

 

[princessv]

I think that setting is lovely and I think I''d like it better bezel set...but then again I''m just a little bit biased hehe.

As far as the melee on the setting if it''s a Quest design, I''ve been really pleased with the quality of their workmanship and they also will replace any melee that fall out for a lifetime. Gotta love that policy.

 

[ecf8503]

OK here''s some pics of it (some with a 6mm CZ in it) and my Jaffe setting, size 4.75, 0.74ct RB center.

 

[ecf8503]

Both:

 

[ecf8503]

Melee closeup (as good as I can with a loupe...)

 

[ecf8503]

Both rings side by side for height comparison: