Need design help with this Art Deco Inspired Setting

[lulu_ma]

Hi All, I am getting closer to my dream OEC anniversary ring. Originally, I was planning on a getting a temp setting. But, I keep coming back to this Art Deco setting. I wonder if anyone has seen a similar setting that is a tad more minimal than this one. Also, I would love your suggestions on a gallery design that is more streamlined. Thanks!

 

[Rfisher]

Dang that’s beautiful.
not sure what you are meaning by more minimal, can you expand on your thoughts?

and more streamlined in the gallery, are you meaning more open or maybe less floral/more geometric?

 

[lulu_ma]

Thanks @Rfisher ! The upper left image is exactly what I was imaging in my head-I just couldn't find a pic.

In terms of the gallery, yes, less floral scrolling. I feel like the floral scroll doesn't quite gel with the top of the setting. I'm having a hard time finding a more pared down design that I like.

 

[mjea]

Are these too far to the minimal side?

 

[Rfisher]

 

[lulu_ma]

@mjea yes. Maybe too minimal. I’d like a pattern I think-just less floral. Surprisingly I’m having a hard time find one I love.

 

[lulu_ma]

@Rfisher omg you’re so good. Are you a graphic designer? Everything looks perfectly presented!

 

[mjea]

@lulu_ma I’ve wondered the same thing!! So many talented and knowledgeable people here!!

 

[Rfisher]

No, lol, just bored and hopefully being helpful.
helpful is also showing you something that you can decide you don’t want.

 

[lulu_ma]

@Rfisher @mjea I love the suggestions-super helpful!

I feel like should look up Art Deco metal work for inspo...

 

[twosanguinehearts]

First of all, I’ve seen that ring design on IG and it’s STUNNING!!!! Love love love! Regarding the basket, I am the same way - I always swap out the floral scroll work for something cleaner. I think with Art Deco you can do something more geometric with straight lines. I love something like this.

 

[LLJsmom]

Love the style of setting. It’s gonna be gorgeous.

 

[lulu_ma]

Thanks @twosanguinehearts ! I have been looking at Deco metalwork all day. I think I'm a tad OCD

Thank you @LLJsmom . I have been fixated on this setting for months. I just want to make sure that it has timeless appeal...

 

[dk168]

How about this? It is the gallery for my 9mm Rubellite ring, and I like the pattern as it is not too ornate/flowery/fussy:



DK

 

[lulu_ma]

@dk168 thanks for posting the gallery of your ring! Very pretty.

@LightBright Thanks for these pics. LOVE your Deco ring so much! It looks like it’s the sister of my inspo setting. The gallery of your ring is much closer to what I had in mind. And I really like transitions between the basket and shank of your ring. Is it comfortable?

 

[LightBright]

@dk168 thanks for posting the gallery of your ring! Very pretty.

@LightBright Thanks for these pics. LOVE your Deco ring so much! It looks like it’s the sister of my inspo setting. The gallery of your ring is much closer to what I had in mind. And I really like transitions between the basket and shank of your ring. Is it comfortable?

Hi Lulu_ma, I HAD to post photos of my ring because it is so similar to your inspiration ring. My ring is very comfortable. It has an unadorned tapered shank that is quite thin (I’m guessing 2.6mm-2.8mm at widest part where it attaches to the halo. If I were stylish, I can imagine this ring could be worn anywhere. The design elements on either side of the stone really make the ring “more than” a round halo. The horizontal facets add a lot of interest.

 

[lulu_ma]

@CSpan Thanks for posting a pic of your gorg ring. I had already saved a pic of your ring in my setting inspo folder last week

@LightBright <sigh> your ring is just sublime. I'm starting to get excited about my project!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Are you attached to the halo? If you are, it’s okay (it’s a gorgeous ring!).

But when I removed it, I thought it really makes the center diamond pop more and simplifies the look while keeping the deco feel.

 

[foxinsox]

Are you attached to the halo? If you are, it’s okay (it’s a gorgeous ring!).

But when I removed it, I thought it really makes the center diamond pop more and simplifies the look while keeping the deco feel.

This is what I was thinking - some sleek tab prongs or a tight bezel?

 

[CSpan]

This is what I was thinking - some sleek tab prongs or a tight bezel?

That is fabulous and likely they could still do an open bottom gallery if you like that feel. That look is dreamy!

 

[yssie]

@lulu_ma Assuming that maximizing the liveliness of your new stone is a priority, I think the faceting and shallow depth are going to impose some practical necessities on design. For example, the under-table facets can't scintillate independently when the stone is loose - this is something that could be improved with a mount that encloses the girdle and pavilion, but that a more open gallery wouldn't do much to remediate. But at the same time, an enclosed pavilion will (again, in this case, with this stone) heighten face-up body colour. Many older stones do come with caveats like this, where priorities require compromises - and of course those that don't will always cost much more!!

I would personally recommend sending your stone to a designer who specializes in older stones and asking for his or her setting recommendations. A designer will be able to meld your aesthetic preferences with what this particular stone needs to perform its best.

 

[Spring Day]

@lulu_ma Assuming that maximizing the liveliness of your new stone is a priority, I think the faceting and shallow depth are going to impose some practical necessities on design. For example, the under-table facets can't scintillate independently when the stone is loose - this is something that could be improved with a mount that encloses the girdle and pavilion, but that a more open gallery wouldn't do much to remediate. But at the same time, an enclosed pavilion will (again, in this case, with this stone) heighten face-up body colour. Many older stones do come with caveats like this, where priorities will require compromises - and of course those that don't will always cost much more!!

I would personally recommend sending your stone to a designer who specializes in older stones and asking for his or her setting recommendations. A designer will be able to meld your aesthetic preferences with what this particular stone needs to perform its best.

Everything @yssie said. You’ve got quite a lot of things to think about. Like I said before, something’s gotta give. The shallow depth makes for a great spread but sacrifices great light return. So choosing the correct setting is extremely important.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@lulu_ma Assuming that maximizing the liveliness of your new stone is a priority, I think the faceting and shallow depth are going to impose some practical necessities on design. For example, the under-table facets can't scintillate independently when the stone is loose - this is something that could be improved with a mount that encloses the girdle and pavilion, but that a more open gallery wouldn't do much to remediate. But at the same time, an enclosed pavilion will (again, in this case, with this stone) heighten face-up body colour. Many older stones do come with caveats like this, where priorities require compromises - and of course those that don't will always cost much more!!

I would personally recommend sending your stone to a designer who specializes in older stones and asking for his or her setting recommendations. A designer will be able to meld your aesthetic preferences with what this particular stone needs to perform its best.

This is critical information for her as I didn't even notice the specs of the stone and that it is shallow. I'd be sure you are okay with all this if you are still within your return period, @lulu_ma . Yssie really understands the ramifications of cut in these stones, and if we are not aware, we can make huge mistakes.

 

[LightBright]

Are you attached to the halo? If you are, it’s okay (it’s a gorgeous ring!).

But when I removed it, I thought it really makes the center diamond pop more and simplifies the look while keeping the deco feel.

That is beautiful. The proportions are perfect and so sleek. I love the tiny double prongs!

 

[lulu_ma]

Are you attached to the halo? If you are, it’s okay (it’s a gorgeous ring!).

But when I removed it, I thought it really makes the center diamond pop more and simplifies the look while keeping the deco feel.

@the_mother_thing Thanks for doing that! This is beautiful, but I am fixated on the halo. I just want this ring to feel completely difference than my er. And, I tried on a haloed OEC and am a little obsessed about finger coverage

 

[lulu_ma]

@lulu_ma Assuming that maximizing the liveliness of your new stone is a priority, I think the faceting and shallow depth are going to impose some practical necessities on design. For example, the under-table facets can't scintillate independently when the stone is loose - this is something that could be improved with a mount that encloses the girdle and pavilion, but that a more open gallery wouldn't do much to remediate. But at the same time, an enclosed pavilion will (again, in this case, with this stone) heighten face-up body colour. Many older stones do come with caveats like this, where priorities require compromises - and of course those that don't will always cost much more!!

I would personally recommend sending your stone to a designer who specializes in older stones and asking for his or her setting recommendations. A designer will be able to meld your aesthetic preferences with what this particular stone needs to perform its best.

@yssie thanks for all this good advice. There are definitely nuances that I have to be aware of with setting this stone. I wish there was a thread about setting spready stones. Visuals would really help me.

 

[lulu_ma]

This is critical information for her as I didn't even notice the specs of the stone and that it is shallow. I'd be sure you are okay with all this if you are still within your return period, @lulu_ma . Yssie really understands the ramifications of cut in these stones, and if we are not aware, we can make huge mistakes.

@diamondseeker2006 I hear what your are saying. I took the weekend to really evaluate the stone in different environments.

On Saturday was able to see the three OECs-G, J, and L-with somewhat comparable carat weights. The 3.99 ct G was so white, but at 52% depth had a terrible fish eye. The 5.07 J was nice but oblong and not great scintillation. The 4.72 L had a bit more fire than my stone, which I expect for 62% depth but it faced up so much more yellow. It's amazing how different these old stones all are. These stones are priced between $55k and $85K. And not one of them was perfect.

To be honest, I was really worried about the depth until I read about Dreamer Dachsie's gorgeous OEC which is also 54% deep. At 54% depth, my 4.11 should have a fish eye or dead petals, but somehow it doesn't. I don't really know why. Missy and FK couldn't figure it out either.

I mean, of course, I would the love OWD's 4.67 ct K/ VS1. But I just don't want to spend $60k on an OEC.

Finding an OEC is a little like shopping for a husband. My stone is smart, good looking, kind, but just a little bit shallow. I still want her. I will just have to be careful setting her-and I definitely need advice on how to do that properly!

 

[yssie]

@yssie thanks for all this good advice. There are definitely nuances that I have to be aware of with setting this stone. I wish there was a thread about setting spready stones. Visuals would really help me.

The difficulty is that so much of "how to make a spready stone perform optimally" really depends on why it's spready in the first place.

In this stone - the angular differential between proximal mains and between those mains and their adjacent lower halves is just too small to allow only one under-table facet at a time to obstruct, return light, or become ineffective as you tilt the stone. That's what's causing the "large mirror plane", or "dead area" effect that we can see in Alex Park's original video, and that also appears in your photos and videos.




Alex's photos and videos honestly appraise the stone. His verbiage, on the other hand... Somewhere between wishful thinking and outright asinine. Should've been graded higher on colour - I write that off every time I hear any vendor say that (or the same of clarity) because it's quite literally never actually true. And the reputable labs do in fact clean stones before they grade them, so the insinuation that a grubby girdle reduced colour grade is idiotic.

Recutting the stone to achieve delineation between the pavilion facets would dramatically decrease spread, which is of course a very unappealing optioin. Choose a setting that encases a significant amount of the pavilion, from girdle to culet (but without metal actually touching the stone) can "fake" pavilion facet delineation by tricking the viewer into thinking that reflections of the interior of the mount that refract back into the stone are actually artifacts of the stone scintillating. It won't look nearly dramatic as an actual obstruction/refraction pattern that's created by total internal reflection, and it won't yield the bold dispersions that effective total internal reflection is renown for, but it can mitigate those visual "mirror planes".

You've probably seen it said on here that shallow stones show less body colour. That's because body colour is a product of accumulation of tint over layers and layers and layers of tinted diamond - a less deep diamond has fewer layers of tinted material to see through, so to speak. If you turn two same-colour (actually same-colour, not just same lab colour designation) diamonds table-down, like you're grading them, and one has significantly more depth than the other - you'd see that the deeper one looks more tinted.

But that's face-down. Face-up - optics has a much bigger impact. Any OEC, well cut or less well cut, will return some of the light that enters the stone from the top back out through the top. For the light that enters from the top that will eventually exit out the top, both an overly shallow stone and an overly deep stone will make that light bounce around inside the stone a lot more before it exits. Better way to say that: Both overly shallow and overly deep stones increase the path length of incident light (path length is a measure of how far light travels inside the stone before it exits). The longer the path length, the longer the light stays inside the stone before it exits, the more energy is absorbed, and the more tinted it is on output. This is why an ideal cut stone is so bright compared even to a shallower but less well cut stone - optimal proportions minimize path length.

When loose, an overly-shallow stone and an overly-deep stone will also both draw light through the pavilion and return it face-up. If you enclose the pavilion to attempt to force visual pavilion facet differentiation, you block all of that light that's coming in through the pavilion, so the stone will look darker and duller face-up. In addition, you create a reflection chamber, wherein light that escapes out the bottom of the stone ("leaks") that would normally go off into the ether is now reflecting off the inside of the basket and re-entering the stone - so the path length of some of the light that exits out the stone is going to be 2x, or more!! Encasing the pavilion of this stone will make it look darker and more tinted - I would guess more than even a well-cut N or O/P coloured OEC.



I'll be honest... And I say this only here on RT, not in SMTB... Alex's stones usually sell very quickly, pressure's on to BuyRightNow - there's precious little time for measured consideration. But an expense of $26000 deserves measured consideration. Most of the RT and OEC long-timers would have advised against this stone - including FK, elizat, Spring Day, and DS. Because you originally wanted a well cut stone. And you didn't get that, or even really close to that, and it's not fixable without sacrificing hugely on spread - a deeper stone is a more forgiving proposition. And I think that if one day you compare this stone to a genuinely good performer... They're out there, I promise!! The difference may well be more stark than you're comfortable with.

If you're within a return period with Alex - that'd be my suggestion, because in my view this is just far too much money to compromise this much, given my understanding of your priorities. But I acknowledge that I may not be understanding your priorities correctly. Ultimately the only person you have to please is yourself of course - if this stone makes your heart sing the way my rose cuts make mine sing then that's what you need to do!

 

[Niel]

I have a (relatively) similar halo in that it has rounds with bags. I would argue it’s probably more intricate not less but here is the profile view. It’s a workhorse profile.

 

[lulu_ma]

@yssie many people have told me that you have to see OECs in person to really assess them.

All I can tell you is that I bought a beautiful antique stone. She’s bright, lively and crisply faceted irl.

I looked at A LOT of stones and this one ticks the most boxes out of all of them. To me, this stone is a keeper.

I did watch this video a few times before making a decision: