Hypothetical 5 stone ring design question

[Lovinggems]

Say, hypothetically, you have 2 small (within 1mm difference) round Tsavorite or Demantoid garnets.


1. Would you set them with 3 other similar sized diamonds as a 5 stone ring? Will the size difference be too noticeable and cause imbalance?

2. Most combination 5 stone rings I've seen on the net is 3 colored stones with 2 diamonds in between, is it because this combination looks better than the 2 colored stones and 3 diamonds combination?

3. Would this ring design looks too generic and not classy enough?

4. If I use OECs for the diamonds they're bound to be varied in size, and very hard to find 3 that match, will this be another problem?

 

[ma re]

To answer one by one:

1. The size difference maybe wouldn't be too noticable at firts glance, but the wearer would now they're not the same and there would be a constant reminder. Not all people would mind this, but I know I would, as it would drive me crazy, cause I'm nuts about balance, symmetry and proportions.

2. I don't think there's anything wrong with arranging stones any of those ways, but I think you see one version (with less diamonds) more often, more because it's cheaper to make it and therefore easier to sell it than the other way around. And since nowdays mall-grade "jewellers" care only about making things as cheap as possible and selling as fast as possible...

3. Not sure I understand this one, but I can say that band-type rings in general are more of an everyday item and not something made to make a huge statement.

4. Depends on the design, but in a classic band ring it might turn out to be.

What I'd suggest you do is think about something more unusual if you want to incorporate both of those stones into the same piece. You can, for instance, find three diamonds one of which is half a mm smaller than the smaller stone, one that's between the two green stones in size, and one that's half a mm larger than the larger of the two stones, so you end up with a graduating five stone ring. Or you can even find just one diamond that's between the sizes of your two stones and graduate just those three in size. Or you can find another green stone the size of a smaller one and make a variation of THIS design, which uses both stones and also makes a statement. As you can see, possibilities are endless.

 

[Lovinggems]

Date: 7/24/2009 3:02:34 AM
Author: ma re
To answer one by one:

1. The size difference maybe wouldn''t be too noticable at firts glance, but the wearer would now they''re not the same and there would be a constant reminder. Not all people would mind this, but I know I would, as it would drive me crazy, cause I''m nuts about balance, symmetry and proportions.

2. I don''t think there''s anything wrong with arranging stones any of those ways, but I think you see one version (with less diamonds) more often, more because it''s cheaper to make it and therefore easier to sell it than the other way around. And since nowdays mall-grade ''jewellers'' care only about making things as cheap as possible and selling as fast as possible...

3. Not sure I understand this one, but I can say that band-type rings in general are more of an everyday item and not something made to make a huge statement.

4. Depends on the design, but in a classic band ring it might turn out to be.

What I''d suggest you do is think about something more unusual if you want to incorporate both of those stones into the same piece. You can, for instance, find three diamonds one of which is half a mm smaller than the smaller stone, one that''s between the two green stones in size, and one that''s half a mm larger than the larger of the two stones, so you end up with a graduating five stone ring. Or you can even find just one diamond that''s between the sizes of your two stones and graduate just those three in size. Or you can find another green stone the size of a smaller one and make a variation of THIS design, which uses both stones and also makes a statement. As you can see, possibilities are endless.

Thank you Mr Ma Re, I was hoping you''ll chime in.

Silly me the size difference is 0.1mm, not 1mm... do you still feel the same way about the balance and proportion?

 

[chrono]

1. You can if you don’t mind the difference in appearance. I don’t think a 0.1 mm difference is noticeable to the eye but even if the tsavorite and demantiod are exactly the same hue, tone and saturation, you will still be able to pick out the difference due to the RI.

2. It is totally a personal preference. I don’t think it will look any better or worse the way you are planning to set it.

3. A 5 stone ring is generally a classic style ring. I’m not sure why it would be considered generic?

4. If you are hunting down the OECs yourself, it may pose an issue. If you have the assistance of a vendor used to sourcing them, you might be all right.

 

[Lovinggems]

Date: 7/24/2009 7:53:40 AM
Author: Chrono

1. You can if you don’t mind the difference in appearance. I don’t think a 0.1 mm difference is noticeable to the eye but even if the tsavorite and demantiod are exactly the same hue, tone and saturation, you will still be able to pick out the difference due to the RI.

2. It is totally a personal preference. I don’t think it will look any better or worse the way you are planning to set it.

3. A 5 stone ring is generally a classic style ring. I’m not sure why it would be considered generic?

4. If you are hunting down the OECs yourself, it may pose an issue. If you have the assistance of a vendor used to sourcing them, you might be all right.

Thanks Chrono, I'm planning on using either Tsavorites or Demantoids, not both. I really like 5 stone rings but for some reason I'm iffy about combining coloured stones and diamonds that way, I actually prefer all diamonds for 5 stone rings, maybe because I haven't seen many combo ones that speaks to me. I'm afraid my design will look like a Zales ring.

 

[Lovinggems]

Second option: 5 stones with a bigger garnet in the middle (prob 1mm bigger than the smaller garnets), 2 OECs on either side (say 0.5mm bigger than the smaller garnets), and the 2 smaller garnets next to the OECs.

Third option: Same as second except with 3 diamonds and 2 garnets.

Fourth option: 3 stones all garnets, 1 bigger one in the middle, the 2 small ones on the side. Maybe diamond halo.

 

[ma re]

Date: 7/24/2009 5:48:07 AM
Author: Lovinggems
Thank you Mr Ma Re, I was hoping you''ll chime in.

Silly me the size difference is 0.1mm, not 1mm... do you still feel the same way about the balance and proportion?

I do if one of the stones is 1 mm in diameter, otherwise no, I''m not a hawk

Regarding your ideas; the key to designing something that will not look mass-produced, is to think about how to best use these particular stones that are in front of you (not just some stones of that variety, but particular stones). Mass-produced jewellery looks cheap because those who came up with it and made it, didn''t pay enough attention, nor give enough time to really look at the materials and consider things like brilliance, color, wearability, durability etc. It''s pretty nicely explained in THIS article (you can also go through the next 3-4 pages). Cause, as the author of that book says (don''t know the exact words): in creating quality pieces of jewellery it''s not important to make something extraordinary (in terms of design), but to properly make/produce something that''s considered ordinary. It''s easy to find stones and tell your jeweller to set them in a channel setting without considering whether those stones, with their respective colors, shapes and levels of brilliance, are even suited for such a project, and whether the maximum of their beauty will be captured in such a design.

And about the style to go with, I''ll let you narrow the choices a bit first

It should be something that you''ll wear enough to justify the expense and something that you''ll be able to combine with your wardrobe and lifestyle.

Chrono, are you sure you could tell a tsav from a demantoid just by observing? I know there''s a difference in R. I., but unless both stones are precision cut you''d need a very well trained eye for that.

 

[Lovinggems]

Date: 7/24/2009 9:31:45 AM
Author: ma re

Date: 7/24/2009 5:48:07 AM
Author: Lovinggems
Thank you Mr Ma Re, I was hoping you''ll chime in.

Silly me the size difference is 0.1mm, not 1mm... do you still feel the same way about the balance and proportion?

I do if one of the stones is 1 mm in diameter, otherwise no, I''m not a hawk

Regarding your ideas; the key to designing something that will not look mass-produced, is to think about how to best use these particular stones that are in front of you (not just some stones of that variety, but particular stones). Mass-produced jewellery looks cheap because those who came up with it and made it, didn''t pay enough attention, nor give enough time to really look at the materials and consider things like brilliance, color, wearability, durability etc. It''s pretty nicely explained in THIS article (you can also go through the next 3-4 pages). Cause, as the author of that book says (don''t know the exact words): in creating quality pieces of jewellery it''s not important to make something extraordinary (in terms of design), but to properly make/produce something that''s considered ordinary. It''s easy to find stones and tell your jeweller to set them in a channel setting without considering whether those stones, with their respective colors, shapes and levels of brilliance, are even suited for such a project, and whether the maximum of their beauty will be captured in such a design.

And about the style to go with, I''ll let you narrow the choices a bit first

It should be something that you''ll wear enough to justify the expense and something that you''ll be able to combine with your wardrobe and lifestyle.

Chrono, are you sure you could tell a tsav from a demantoid just by observing? I know there''s a difference in R. I., but unless both stones are precision cut you''d need a very well trained eye for that.

Thanks again Mr. Ma Re. I''m not sure what I want yet but I suppose I have plenty of time to think about the design.

The reason this is a hypothetical question is I only have one out of the five stones, I was viewing it next to a smaller OEC and it looked rather good. One thing for sure the other green stone I have yet to purchase is probably a good match for the one I have now, so I''ll get that. The question is should I get another bigger garnet as the middle stone and no OECs... plus 2 OECs... or 3 OECs but skip the bigger garnet... or...

 

[chrono]

Date: 7/24/2009 8:43:56 AM
Author: Lovinggems
Thanks Chrono, I''m planning on using either Tsavorites or Demantoids, not both. I really like 5 stone rings but for some reason I''m iffy about combining coloured stones and diamonds that way, I actually prefer all diamonds for 5 stone rings, maybe because I haven''t seen many combo ones that speaks to me. I''m afraid my design will look like a Zales ring.

There’s no question that a same coloured ring is more formal and something mixed with coloured stones is a bit more casual.

 

[chrono]

Date: 7/24/2009 9:31:45 AM
Author: ma re

Chrono, are you sure you could tell a tsav from a demantoid just by observing? I know there''s a difference in R. I., but unless both stones are precision cut you''d need a very well trained eye for that.

I find that the green of a demantoid is different from the green of the tsavorite. It’s probably more difficult to tell them apart in small sizes.

 

[chrono]

Your second option is a different look, less common but is still considered a classic look. It has the 5 stone tapered look.
Option 3 is also viable. I guess option 2 has a stronger emphasis on colour whereas the garnets play more of a supporting role in Option 3.
Option 4 is a 3 stone garnet ring? I’ve also seen that done before but not with a diamond halo.

 

[mercoledi]

This ring seems similar to what you have in mind, and I think it's pretty awesome.

 

[Lovinggems]

Date: 7/24/2009 3:39:16 PM
Author: Chrono
Your second option is a different look, less common but is still considered a classic look. It has the 5 stone tapered look.
Option 3 is also viable. I guess option 2 has a stronger emphasis on colour whereas the garnets play more of a supporting role in Option 3.
Option 4 is a 3 stone garnet ring? I’ve also seen that done before but not with a diamond halo.

I think I''ll go for a 5 stone ring, just realised option 4 look too much like the Ritani endless love!

 

[Lovinggems]

Date: 7/24/2009 4:38:31 PM
Author: mercoledi
This ring seems similar to what you have in mind, and I think it''s pretty awesome.

That''s a gorgeous ring, I love vintage jewellery.

 

[chrono]

Date: 7/24/2009 11:48:01 PM
Author: Lovinggems

Date: 7/24/2009 3:39:16 PM
Author: Chrono
Your second option is a different look, less common but is still considered a classic look. It has the 5 stone tapered look.
Option 3 is also viable. I guess option 2 has a stronger emphasis on colour whereas the garnets play more of a supporting role in Option 3.
Option 4 is a 3 stone garnet ring? I’ve also seen that done before but not with a diamond halo.

I think I''ll go for a 5 stone ring, just realised option 4 look too much like the Ritani endless love!

But they don''t have it with garnets.

 

[Lovinggems]

Chrono for some reason I don''t like the endless love design.

How about 5 garnets the same size? Or 2 garnets and a pink spinel in the middle?