Help! I'm lost in the land of re-setting!

[mrs-b]

@ILikeShiny - if I do a dahlia, I wouldn't trust anyone except Caysie to do it; designers tend to do their own designs best!

However...I just called MC2 - I have an appt this weekend. I blame you for this....

 

[BlingDreams]

However...I just called MC2 - I have an appt this weekend. I blame you for this....

Haha! I will happily take that blame Their designs are simply STUNNING and heirloom works of art. Can't wait to hear how the appointment goes!

 

[whitewave]

Oooh. This got exciting!

 

[bright ice]

I'm with you, I love the Dahlia but think it needs a more swooping head!

 

[ac117]

@mrs-b I'm really excited to see what you decide!! I remember we chatted about your 3 stone idea last year when I tried on Grace's gorgeous victorian ring - that was a wall on bling on my finger! I too have a size 7 so I understand where you're coming from in terms on finger coverage. But I do personally think that your 3.6ct or an upgraded 4+ct would be a LOT with 1.7 sides. I think the smaller ones you were considering before (1.3?) would compliment the center better. I just looked back at my pictures of that ring on and there was just less definition of the center stone given the sides - but maybe this is what you want! I'm going to attach a few more pics of that ring on me that I didn't post before...brb!

 

[ac117]

It could be the setting, too, that is making me feel like the center isn't as defined...

 

[LLJsmom]

I love the idea of a three stone and I think you could carry it off. Are you ok with a less defined center wall of bling look which is what you get with a three stone?

 

[mrs-b]

Ooooh - @ac117 - I remember that chat! Do you happen to recall the stats on that ring? As I recall (and this is common for vintage 3 and 5 stone settings) there are tiny little RB's in the V's where each stone meets the one next to it, the aim being to remove the V and make it look like...a wall of bling! My 3 stone wouldn't look like that. I did have a 1.3 and was going to get a matching stone for the other side, but decided I really like the 1-2-1 combo of proportion, so wanted to get closer to that.

Here's a very bad screen shot of exactly what I mean. In this photo is (I think) a 5 ct (maybe 6ct?) solitaire with a 3 stone which is my fave of all time. It's a Tiffany 3 stone, and it's 1.25/2.5/1.25ct - so, 5ctw. I think it's sublime. I cant recall the finger size of its owner - but I don't remember it being especially large or small. In fact, it's possibly my all time favorite ring on PS.

And just to throw a spanner in the works - if I were to go with the MC2 setting, I would probably keep my current stone. I don't believe, in that setting, you'd notice an extra .5mm all that much, and any side tint would be concealed. This would leave me plenty of budget to buy 2 x .85ct side stones for my 1.7 VC stone, and I could do a three stone as well. So - best of both worlds. Or would it mean I ended up with a 3 stone smaller than I liked, and a solitaire of a lower color??

The merry go round continues....

 

[LLJsmom]

I just looked at the mc2 ring and I love it. Can they do a three stone version? I like that each stone would be defined and you would still get the definition of the center stone but the coverage and wall of bling effect of a three stone.

 

[ac117]

Ooooh - @ac117 - I remember that chat! Do you happen to recall the stats on that ring? As I recall (and this is common for vintage 3 and 5 stone settings) there are tiny little RB's in the V's where each stone meets the one next to it, the aim being to remove the V and make it look like...a wall of bling! My 3 stone wouldn't look like that. I did have a 1.3 and was going to get a matching stone for the other side, but decided I really like the 1-2-1 combo of proportion, so wanted to get closer to that.

Here's a very bad screen shot of exactly what I mean. In this photo is (I think) a 5 ct (maybe 6ct?) solitaire with a 3 stone which is my fave of all time. It's a Tiffany 3 stone, and it's 1.25/2.5/1.25ct - so, 5ctw. I think it's sublime. I cant recall the finger size of its owner - but I don't remember it being especially large or small. In fact, it's possibly my all time favorite ring on PS.

And just to throw a spanner in the works - if I were to go with the MC2 setting, I would probably keep my current stone. I don't believe, in that setting, you'd notice an extra .5mm all that much, and any side tint would be concealed. This would leave me plenty of budget to buy 2 x .85ct side stones for my 1.7 VC stone, and I could do a three stone as well. So - best of both worlds. Or would it mean I ended up with a 3 stone smaller than I liked, and a solitaire of a lower color??

The merry go round continues....

The center on that ring was 'only' 3.18 ct (8.96mm - 9.03mm) with 1.49 and 1.6 side stones. You are right, I do see the tiny little diamonds that fill in the gap! I suppose without these there would be more definition. Although, I would also imagine your side stones may need a bit of tucking so it could fit on your finger with such a large center and then there would still be a little less definition. I guess this is where the craftsman/ring designer comes into play to create a setting the has a balance of both!

I know you're still deciding - but how do you feel if you're told you could ONLY get a solitaire? Would you be disappointed in not getting 3 stone? Or vice versa? If a 3 stone and that HUGE bling look is what you want, a solitaire isn't going to satisfy that (even if it is 4 cts!). Stay true to your wants - whatever they may be deep down!

 

[mrs-b]

That is an excellent question! I haven't asked myself that, and I probably should. Like - immediately.

I think my desire for a 3 stone has decreased somewhat since I got my 7 stone ring. Although not in the same ball park for ctw, it still gives me a very blingy, side to side coverage, effect. I also really DO want to go up in color. If my stone was white (G or above) I would be considering completely different styles. I don't like the level of profile tint in my current stone, and moving to an H might *just* address it. But G definitely would.

 

[ac117]

Another thing to ask yourself is whether you'll always be bothered by side tint - bc while you're upgrading, you could possibly upgrade 2 in color to G and stay at VS2. My 3.24 VS2 is a VERY clean stone - nothing visible. I just couldn't see myself going lower in color and being happy (in a MRB).

 

[Skhii]

@whitewave - the collar on your ring is delightful and dainty to the max! I'll give it some thought to see if it could be a possibility, tho I think it's unlikely that it will work with my band and stone size. What a beautiful ring your asscher is!!

I don't know what your band looks like, but Stephanie Gottlieb's engagement ring stone is close in size to yours (3.5 ct vs 3.61 ct), and I think it suits her setting well. She's a jeweler and her e-ring setting is one of her signature settings. You can literally see hundreds of photos of it on her Instagram if you like that design and want an idea of how your stone would look in it: https://www.instagram.com/stephaniegottlieb. Her work is also on the virtual try-on app, Beaumade.

 

[BlingDreams]

I also really DO want to go up in color. If my stone was white (G or above) I would be considering completely different styles. I don't like the level of profile tint in my current stone, and moving to an H might *just* address it. But G definitely would.

Have you considered staying with the same size stone you have now but going up in color to G and then resetting THAT stone?

 

[mrs-b]

@ILikeShiny - Yes, I have. I wouldn't be willing to go down in size, but I'd be wiling to stay the same so long as I can go up in color. I'd like to go up a little tho - 4ct has always been my goal size.

@ac117 - my concern re clarity is that - the bigger the stone, the more obvious the inclusions. That's not to say there aren't plenty of eye clean VS2s at that size - I just want to be sure I get one of them! Just btw - although if I had the choice I would remove the tiny stones between the larger 3 stones - I LOVE grace's ring on you! I don't see inherent value in a circle of bling over a spread of bling - if they're equally well cut stones, it just means the bling goes on further. I have no issue with that!

@LLJsmom - I don't *think* they could do a three stone version - just because my stones are large and it's a substantial setting. But I'll be there this weekend, and I will definitely ask! I love that setting.

 

[yssie]

I will confess... I have had stars in my eyes for MC2 since I first learnt about them years and years ago. Their reputation is impeccable and their aesthetic is elusive, provocative, and inimitably alluring... so take my opinion with the tureen of salt it probably merits

I LOVE my pieces by Erika, but I have to say that for what it sounds like you're looking for - "substantial" is not in her portfolio. In fact, I would say rather that she excels at creating a delicate look and feel from the substantial!

I wound up working with RDG on a setting that four years later still takes my breath away. To me RDG (now David Michael) and MC2 fulfill the same niche need - both specialise in immediately-recognisable design patterns that veer sharply toward "whimsy" over "solemnity"... I'm really looking forward to hearing how your visit goes! It sounds like you're looking for "more", but aren't entirely sure what more might entail, and I can't think of a better place than a creative outfit like MC2 to complete that picture

 

[Resonance.Of.Life]

^ +1 to everything Yssie said.

On another note: I thought MC2 didn't work with client stones? Did they change this? Please let us know if they've decided to change their tune as I'd DIE for a Flora ring with a stone of my own.

https://www.mc2jewels.com/faq#t3n12



"We Don't Make Mountings
We appreciate your interest in our work however, McTeigue & McClelland only makes and sells complete, finished pieces - we do not make mountings using client's gemstones. We maintain the highest standards of beauty for the gemstones featured in our jewelry. Every stone is selected with a great deal of consideration - aesthetically and technically - of the finished piece of jewelry. Our rings are then entirely handmade, for the specific stone, one at a time, by highly skilled craftsmen and artisans. Due to the nature of producing handmade jewelry of this caliber, we are only able to make a limited number of pieces each year - and we are currently working to full capacity with our own stock of diamonds and gemstones."

 

[mrs-b]

I was thinking 4 carats with a split shank. That would add interest from the top view but not sure how you wedding band would sit with it. I particulary
like this one... (budget beware). You would need to add milgrain to your wedding band if it doesnt already have it (I cant tell).
http://erikawinters.com/Engagement-Rings-Helena-Split-Shank-Solitaire.html#.WZQ_flWGMdU

What about something like this...(but custom made for your 4 carat). The top two side stones could be the size of the stones in your wedding band.
This would be a whole lot of bling (maybe more than you want).
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...r-milgrain-diamond-engagement-ring-item-49486

Another option would be something like this with milgrain (custom made of course)
https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...d-inspired-diamond-engagement-ring-item-41042

@tyty333 - that EW Helena band is lovely. I'd been looking at that previously; while I'm not a split shank girl, I was already wondering if it could be done with stones that increased in size - as per the JA rings, but more delicate.

If you look at my current solitaire, my 7 stone ring and my original 3 stone ring, you'll see that I like a mock-cathedral look for where the shank meets the head. The shank always curves upwards (I'm a sucker for that swoop in rings!) but it has no air-gap between the band and the cathedral arms. Make sense? I don't want - and I mean this is a design deal breaker for me - cathedral arms and a shank below it. Something about it strikes me like looking into struts/construction. If I can close off that air gap, then it just looks like swoop to my eye, but as soon as you get shank + cathedral arms, it loses that appeal for me. Sort of a case of 'I don't want to see HOW it works - I just want to see it work!'.

Consequently, that's been my problem with so many designs. I don't like a head coming out of a flat band, or a shank with obvious cathedral arms. I want swoop. If I want diamond side stones, what that leaves me with is a setting with a shank that widens and curves upward enough so that the band isn't just flat...but not so much that it leaves me with a large block of metal deep enough to hold diamonds in side view. I'm not sure if that makes sense - but it's been the bane of almost every one of my ideas.

ETA Pave'ing or setting on an inward curve is also a problem. With an upward swoop, the heads of any stones set into that swoop are pushed together, which is almost geometrically impossible. The list is endless.

 

[valeria101]

I like the Bella Stretta,
...
The new ring will have to sit next to a substantial anniversary band

I just called MC2 - I have an appt this weekend.

Might they have a version of the Bella Stretta with a diamond-set bezel ? I am not thinking of pave, but rather larger bits of diamond - say, one per bezel 'petal'. I don't think I have seen such a ring around here ... but they do exist !

MC2 does such things with fine colored stones. AOP also.

my concern re clarity is that - the bigger the stone, the more obvious the inclusions.

Not what the clarity grading standard says. If you do not dismiss the SI1 posibility, there is a small chance for one with subtler 'clarity characteristics' than you might see in VS2.

 

[mrs-b]

Hi @yssie -

I'm wondering if my ring in the end will be a collection of all the things I don't 'not want'. This would result in such a 'meh' kind of ring - conservative and dull. I suspect I will need to step out on a limb with this and take a few risks.

You're absolutely right; I want substantial. By that, I don't mean heavy, lumpy, blocky, or big. I want something smooth, modern, classic and something which is an accessory and adds to my general grooming/appearance - rather than something so delicate nobody except me can enjoy it. Which is why I thought about a large 3 stone. It has to be proportional to my finger. And I like things with clear lines rather than detail; too much detail wears on my eye after a while.

Not wanting something dainty doesn't mean I don't want something super-precise. Just because I don't want something detailed in its decoration - doesn't mean I'm not detail-oritentated in my expectation. I am all about proportions and balance and I like a reserved, strong, feminine aesthetic. Good lord - I'm hearing myself and I think if I turn up to MC2 and tell them all this they're going to think I'm out of my mind!

And I'm starting to think they *will* have to deal with me, though, because their aesthetic is resonating more and more loudly, the more I look at their pieces.

ETA And just to add, I just spent 20 minutes looking through the artofdm site. Sweet mother of all things sparkly....!!!

 

[msop04]

Here's a very bad screen shot of exactly what I mean. In this photo is (I think) a 5 ct (maybe 6ct?) solitaire with a 3 stone which is my fave of all time. It's a Tiffany 3 stone, and it's 1.25/2.5/1.25ct - so, 5ctw. I think it's sublime. I cant recall the finger size of its owner - but I don't remember it being especially large or small. In fact, it's possibly my all time favorite ring on PS.

Isn't this the Cartier 5ct that belonged to RandG?

I just love your solitaire, but I understand it not working if you want BIG and BOLD! I think a three stone would be AMAZING with the stone you have now!

 

[mrs-b]

Hi @msop04

Yes, those are RandG's rings. Amazing, right?! My favorite, tho, is the Tiffany 3 stone in the photo - 2.5ct center with 2 x 1.25ct sides.

As you know, I actually love my solitaire. But it's time to 'move on up'! If, however, I ended up just with a remade version of my current ring, I wouldn't hate that. it's not my dream ring, but Im very fond of it and, while plain, I find it to be elegant and wearable.

 

[msop04]

Hi @msop04

Yes, those are RandG's rings. Amazing, right?! My favorite, tho, is the Tiffany 3 stone in the photo - 2.5ct center with 2 x 1.25ct sides.

As you know, I actually love my solitaire. But it's time to 'move on up'! If, however, I ended up just with a remade version of my current ring, I wouldn't hate that. it's not my dream ring, but Im very fond of it and, while plain, I find it to be elegant and wearable.

Since you love the T&Co three stone, why not do a three stone with the same proportions?

 

[yssie]

Hi @yssie -

I'm wondering if my ring in the end will be a collection of all the things I don't 'not want'. This would result in such a 'meh' kind of ring - conservative and dull. I suspect I will need to step out on a limb with this and take a few risks.

You're absolutely right; I want substantial. By that, I don't mean heavy, lumpy, blocky, or big. I want something smooth, modern, classic and something which is an accessory and adds to my general grooming/appearance - rather than something so delicate nobody except me can enjoy it. Which is why I thought about a large 3 stone. It has to be proportional to my finger. And I like things with clear lines rather than detail; too much detail wears on my eye after a while.

Not wanting something dainty doesn't mean I don't want something super-precise. Just because I don't want something detailed in its decoration - doesn't mean I'm not detail-oritentated in my expectation. I am all about proportions and balance and I like a reserved, strong, feminine aesthetic. Good lord - I'm hearing myself and I think if I turn up to MC2 and tell them all this they're going to think I'm out of my mind!

And I'm starting to think they *will* have to deal with me, though, because their aesthetic is resonating more and more loudly, the more I look at their pieces.

ETA And just to add, I just spent 20 minutes looking through the artofdm site. Sweet mother of all things sparkly....!!!

This makes perfect sense to me. IMO the wonderful thing about working with a top-notch designer in the truest sense of that term, as opposed to a talented bench with a dedicated frontman, is that he will be able to help you figure out exactly what you do want - probably starting with your list of not-wants!! - and will use his artistry to guide that vision into something that sings to you. So if you choose a designer whose overall aesthetic you love... you know you're in good hands! And goodness knows MC2 certainly fits the bill

I sent RDG photos of tableware and flowers and told Mike I wanted something wild and asymmetric, and with a few iterations he was able to transform those abstract concepts into a concrete implementation I know no other designer could have come up with. It's perfect for me. He may well have thought I was batsh*t, to be fair but... like you, I couldn't envision what I wanted (though again like you I had strong opinions on elements I didn't want!), I mostly just had a feeling I wanted to capture... and confidence in his eye. I think in general you know you'll pay dearly for a piece by an outfit like MC2, DM, EW, Leon's custom couture creations - you're paying for pristine execution, unparalleled attention to your individual piece/design, and exceptional service.

I would ask, though, if you're confident you'll be happy with your stone in a one-of-a-kind design? If you're questioning it at all I would strongly recommend going for the upgrade first!! I adore my RDG, but the centerstone wasn't the size I wanted so the piece was never going to be my finally-final, much as I hoped it would be at the time.

 

[mrs-b]

@yssie -

I've been <polite cough> talking to White Flash <polite cough> and may trade my stone with them for an upgrade. My current stone is beautifully cut and it has wonderful light return, but I really DO want...well, you know what I want, I've said it before. I don't think that's gonna change.

So - I've been having some thoughts on the way forward and I realize that MC2 has the Bella Flora, the Bella Stretta...and when I see them on Saturday, I'm going to suggest the Bella Rosa. I won't go into what it is I want on here, but suffice to say, it's a modification of the Bella style. I don't know if they're even open to mods, so the idea might die at conception. But we'll see. (If I think about this too much, would that make it the Ponderosa?)

Have you noticed the elongated old cut cushion surrounded by sapphires on Art of DM's page?? If I could have that ring, I'd die a happy woman. I thought about doing something using that as an inspiration, but with a round, with rubies, and a number of other various tweaks and changes, but I'm just not game. A ring that is somewhere between that, and minimountain's amazing new ring by CVB. Their website says they only do a limited number of pieces a year, so I'm going to assume they wouldn't be available to do a diamond and ruby concoction for me...and give my husband a break. And - have we seen your RDG piece?? If it's on here somewhere, could you attach a link? I'd love to see it! The diamond and sapphire ring took my breath away...but that brooch with the conch pearls...oh man! Totally did me in.

What a cool idea of things to use for inspiration! Just for the fun of it - here's the photos I'd send of flowers and tableware if I was going that direction!

 

[yssie]

Call me crazy but I really think those photos help! I feel I have a much better idea of what you're looking for - clean lines, sturdy structures, tempered curves (no curliques and Olde Worlde frippery, thank you!) but also no sharp geometries... bold and modern.

I know when I see pictures of jewellery - or parts of jewels - as inspiration... well, I'm so used to diving into the details that it's easy to lose the forest for the trees. Interesting how clearly non-jewellery designs convey desired aesthetic... The RDG is having a spa week - I'm switching out the centerstone (again, LOL). Definitely indulging in a long photoshoot when she's home!! I'm not home for two more days to be honest I'd be embarrassed to post photos of my sterling anyway, it's in terrible shape right now, but I know I sent RDG my pattern and several snaps reflecting my ongoing obsession with all things Michael Aram - was pretty clearly looking for a different look and feel!!

Ponderosa, indeed

 

[BlingDreams]

(If I think about this too much, would that make it the Ponderosa?)

 

[MissGotRocks]

Well you certainly have some exciting prospects on the horizon mrs-b! You will have a grand time trying to narrow down exactly what you want. I often find that if I stop and try to clear my mind of all outside influences I really know deep down inside what I want. Sounds simple I know but because there are so many possibilities to try on for size, the mind can become muddled with all of them. It sounds like you really want to upgrade color and possibly clarity even more than you do size so stick to your guns - you won't be disappointed if you follow your heart. We all know that size is just size but if the stone isn't beautiful, larger just doesn't cut it. There are so many beautiful settings to be had but when you try to imagine yourself wearing any one of them for an every day piece, it cuts out a lot of the fluff - even though it may be gorgeous.
Just another thought - I think you are too harsh on yourself regarding your hands and if anything you put on them will be well noticed. It will - believe me! While we all enjoy compliments, it is far more important to like what I see on my hand than it is to hear what others think. After all, jewelry is totally personal and must please the wearer much more than the observer! Best of luck - I have enjoyed following your thought processes thus far and look forward to sharing the rest as you progress through the journey!!

 

[valeria101]

I think you are too harsh on yourself regarding your hands and if anything you put on them will be well noticed. It will - believe me!

Ditto.

Perhaps in a picture owhere all you see are fingers & diamonds, 4 carats look 'small' on you. You are not fooling anyone in real life ,-)

 

[valeria101]

Have you noticed the elongated old cut cushion surrounded by sapphires on Art of DM's page?? If I could have that ring, I'd die a happy woman. I thought about doing something using that as an inspiration, but with a round, with rubies, and a number of other various tweaks and changes, but I'm just not game. A ring that is somewhere between that, and minimountain's amazing new ring by CVB.

Arranging .1 - .3 cts rounds (any species) around the 4.X mother rock ... could be fun ! - but, it might end up like this WWW (I recall that JAR is to be blamed for the design, LM's was an ... interpetation).

The diamond in the DM ring ... certainly drives the design. The JAR & LM rings are also built around watery, old-school stones. RBCs are so very different !

Just a thought ...