Octagon Bezels - recessed vs prong set

[TravelingGal]

Since the question was asked on Yenny’s thread, I thought I’d answer it here.

In an octagon bezel, what the difference between recessed and prong set (or as Dreamer calls it, “tucked”)

If you want to get into the octagon club, you’ll need to get past our newly self appointed club gate keeper Dreamer and know the difference. These are my observations, I’m sure others have stuff to add. I will also say I don’t think one is better than the other, it’s mostly preference.

Recessed: The diamond is set INTO the bezel. The girdle is set below the basket line (therefore recessed in) with small prongs/beads/whatever holding the diamond and the prongs originate on the inside lip of the bezel. If it’s set this way it’s:

- More authentic to the period. Almost every octagon (or hexagon) outline I’ve seen from this period is set this way.
- Slightly more pronounced octagon shape. There are no prongs breaking up the line. There can be a tiny bit more metal, as there can be more of a “lip” from the outside edge of the bezel to the edge of the diamond.
- More secure/protective for the girdle
- Cleaner lines for the profile (the line of the basket isn’t broken up by prongs)
- More spread, because having slightly more metal to set it this way means the whole thing is ever so slightly bigger.

Set the other way where the prongs hold the diamond secure and the diamond sits above the basket line:

- More pillowy profile since the girdles are set higher than the basket line
- Softer octagon outlines as the prongs break up the stopsign effect, but less of a clean look because there are a lot of prongs! (and I think more potential for an ugly ring is easier as we all know how south prong work can go)
- Slightly more thin looking bezels as the outline can hug the diamond without having a lip
- A “crown” look to the profile due to the prongs extending above the basket line
- This is a modern, more bastardized version, as I always say.

I wouldn’t say the look is “night and day” as when the ring is on your hand it will sparkle and flash and the outlines (and prongs) kind of meld a bit with that. Both are definitely beautiful, so it’s what you prefer!

Pics coming as examples...

Edited to insert a line above the bullet for prong set

 

[TravelingGal]

Here is a collage of antique rings set recessed, as well as Dreamer and Yenny’s ring. Keeping in mind the prong work on Dreamer’s ring is not original (both the improved version and the version she initially got with the globby prongs). Unlike the other antique rings pictured above, the prongs came from the bezel line. As a result, I think Dreamer’s bezel looks tighter and thinner than the other antique rings I posted. In fact, in the other pics comparing my gold inspiration ring and her ring, I see almost no difference in the outline in the top view. The slight difference is in the profile view. The stone in the gold ring is a yellow sapphire with a shallow crown. A diamond would change the look of this profile as it would be a fair bit higher, especially in an old cut. I think Dreamer’s ring is one of the nicer antique examples I’ve seen where the bezel line is fine, tight and clean. And believe me, in my hunt for octagonorama, I saw a lot!

 

[TravelingGal]

And the shots of my ring and another of the ring I used for inspiration, which are prong set. You can see the girdles are above the basket line. I think especially in the case of my ring, the octagon outlines are right up against the diamond line, almost looking “tucked” under.

Hope that helps!

 

[TravelingGal]

oh btw, one more thing. If you're after a 3 stone, and it's recessed, the profile line looks more like this. Yenny's ring also is like this. It's more straight lines all the way through on the horizontal axis.

 

[Laila619]

Oh yay, thanks for the great examples!

I probably wouldn't even notice a difference IRL.

 

[TravelingGal]

Oh yay, thanks for the great examples!

I probably wouldn't even notice a difference IRL.

Nope. Only in anal PS land, would anyone care.

 

[Enerchi]

Thanks TGal!! Always so detailed - I love your posts and descriptions - you really bring something to life! thanks

 

[Dreamer_D]

Excellent! I have nothing informational to add, you covered it all very well.

My comments or observations:

1) I also think one is not inherently better than the other, for the record and in case anyone cannot tell my humour I was absolutely joking when I made a statement to that effect in Yenny's thread!

2) I think with real vintage pieces it is probably hard to find a ring that has its original diamond AND its original prongs This is sad because I feel like in many cases the prong work done by the estate sellers to reset daimond after they had pulled them to weigh pre-sale are often not up to snuff. The globby prongs on my ring when I got it are a good enample, and were actually just blobs of solder (sodder??) not platinum cut to shape and *then* welded in place as they should have been. I think some of the examples TGal posted might also show slighy blobby prongs in the recessed versions, but at least they are nice and small, which I think is important with recessed styles.

3) If one was choosing between the styles I do think the shape of your diamond and also your own particular way of enjoying your diamond should guide you slightly. With the prong set style that TGal has you get to see much more of the stone including the profile view, and the top part of the ring has a really three dimensional feel to it. With the recessed styles like mine and Yenny's you cannot see the profile of the stone much, and even with a higher crowned old cut, depending on how recessed the stone is, you may not see much of the profile at all! Sometimes for me it gives my ring a slight "flashlight" appearance Its the only negative. FWIW I feel like the amazing gallery work that you can have done on a ring like this compensates, though, and in styles with a lot of cut outs you can see the pavilion of the diamonds *thought* the bars and for me that is a romantic side view, like catching a glimps of something secret But I digress. The point is, if you really really love seeing the profile of your diamonds, then the prong set is probably a better way to go with this style.

4) Thank you for the compliment, TGal, about my mount. I really do love it. An interesting tidbit: My jeweler thinks my diamond is not original to my mount, and thinks it held a larger diamond originally, because he thinks the stone should have an even tighter fit inside the bezel than it already has. I wonder if it held a smaller diamond which would have sat a little lower and resulted in more of a recess.

5) As legitiamtely elected gate keeper of the octagonal bezel club (there was a vote of the three current members, but two votes were thrown out because of voting errors) I hope we see more of these styles on PS! I think it is such a great look in person, fun and interesting and unique. I am not biased, that is my true and objective opinion.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I wanted to add this photo of my ring which shows the recess a little more clearly, how slight it is.





And I also wanted to add this picture to show how much extra hand presence this style gives. Top is Demelza's 2.5ct MRB with an 8.8mm spread. Bottom is my 1.89ct American Cut with an 8mm spread. In person, they look very similar, the bezel really does enhance visual size.

 

[TravelingGal]

Excellent! I have nothing informational to add, you covered it all very well.

My comments or observations:

1) I also think one is not inherently better than the other, for the record and in case anyone cannot tell my humour I was absolutely joking when I made a statement to that effect in Yenny's thread!

2) I think with real vintage pieces it is probably hard to find a ring that has its original diamond AND its original prongs This is sad because I feel like in many cases the prong work done by the estate sellers to reset daimond after they had pulled them to weigh pre-sale are often not up to snuff. The globby prongs on my ring when I got it are a good enample, and were actually just blobs of solder (sodder??) not platinum cut to shape and *then* welded in place as they should have been. I think some of the examples TGal posted might also show slighy blobby prongs in the recessed versions, but at least they are nice and small, which I think is important with recessed styles.

3) If one was choosing between the styles I do think the shape of your diamond and also your own particular way of enjoying your diamond should guide you slightly. With the prong set style that TGal has you get to see much more of the stone including the profile view, and the top part of the ring has a really three dimensional feel to it. With the recessed styles like mine and Yenny's you cannot see the profile of the stone much, and even with a higher crowned old cut, depending on how recessed the stone is, you may not see much of the profile at all! Sometimes for me it gives my ring a slight "flashlight" appearance Its the only negative. FWIW I feel like the amazing gallery work that you can have done on a ring like this compensates, though, and in styles with a lot of cut outs you can see the pavilion of the diamonds *thought* the bars and for me that is a romantic side view, like catching a glimps of something secret But I digress. The point is, if you really really love seeing the profile of your diamonds, then the prong set is probably a better way to go with this style.

4) Thank you for the compliment, TGal, about my mount. I really do love it. An interesting tidbit: My jeweler thinks my diamond is not original to my mount, and thinks it held a larger diamond originally, because he thinks the stone should have an even tighter fit inside the bezel than it already has. I wonder if it held a smaller diamond which would have sat a little lower and resulted in more of a recess.

5) As legitiamtely elected gate keeper of the octagonal bezel club (there was a vote of the three current members, but two votes were thrown out because of voting errors) I hope we see more of these styles on PS! I think it is such a great look in person, fun and interesting and unique. I am not biased, that is my true and objective opinion.

Ack hit submit before I wrote anything!

To your bolded above, no you were not kidding, haha! Because I think mine's better. Mine! MINE!

OK, I''m kidding, but I think it's great we all love our rings.

To the other bolded part, I wondered about too, only because of the original prongwork making me think that they put a different stone and then secured the diamond back in.

I agree with you on the profile, and seeing less of it in the recessed set diamond. I think that's why with this style the profile design was so important to me (whichever way it was set) because that is what I see much of the time. My hunt was less about the top view and actually more about how it was going to look from the side.

 

[Mara]

all I can say is YUM!!!

I visually prefer the prong set octagons in pictures but have only seen TG's in real life so not sure if in RL I would notice the diff! the differences seem small but i think it would impact the 'shape' visually?

 

[TravelingGal]

all I can say is YUM!!!

I visually prefer the prong set octagons in pictures but have only seen TG's in real life so not sure if in RL I would notice the diff! the differences seem small but i think it would impact the 'shape' visually?

Mara I don't think *necessarily* that the prong or recessed/bead shape will affect the shape, but it can be a factor. If you take a look at Dreamer's ring vs the gold ring, from the top they really do look pretty well exactly the same to me. Dreamer's bezel does not have sharp corners. They are ever so slightly rounded.

Even IF they tried to make mine sharper corners, it couldn't happen because of the way they did the prongs. The outer edge of the prong is rounded, so the entire shape is softer, because the prongs are where the corners connect. Whereas in Yennys ring as well as the Fay Cullen example (the "Coati" pic), there are no prongs, so it's easier to come to a point in octagon. That and the amount of "lip" would affect the overall perception of the shape in MACRO pics.

In think from normal viewing distance, you'd have to be looking for the difference in order to see it. From all of the hand shots I've seen of everyone's rings, it all just looks octagonish!

 

[Sky56]

My octagonal platinum diamond ring

 

[Dreamer_D]

Sky we need more photos of your ring please!

In person, when worn, my ring looks round from a distance, but I can see the octagonal shape. It is softly octgonal.

 

[yennyfire]

You always explain things so well TGal! I would concur that one style isn't better than another. I honestly don't know which look I prefer. They are so similar and both gorgeous! Still working on pics TGal. Hope to be able to add some macro shots of my ring soon.

 

[Sky56]

hi Dreamer D - Here is another photo of my ring. I apologize for the poor quality of my photos.

My grandmother wore it on her pinky in the 1920's and through the following decades.

It is of great sentimental value to me. I often wear it as a right hand ring and I enjoy the beauty of the I color, VS1 .75 carat diamond and the platinum setting.

The octagonal setting protects the stone and has a very pleasing look to my eye as well.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think these are all beautiful settings! I never get tired of looking at these rings!

 

[Dougsgirl]

Hmmmm.... One of the things I love the most about the old rings with old stones is the profile view when those marvelous crowns stick out the top like a scoop of ice cream! Therefore, I think I prefer the "tucked" (Prong set?) bezel. That being said... The milgrain and other details on some of the others are so beautiful, that I love those also for a completely different reason. I guess, in my mind, one style shows off the diamond more and the other style shows off the ring design more. You are right... there is no wrong answer! BOTH are stunning!

Thanks, TGal, for the tutorial and all the pics!!

 

[TravelingGal]

sky, I LOVE your ring!

Dougsgirl, "scoop of ice cream"...I love it.

 

[Sky56]

Thanks, TravelingGal

 

[Rosebloom]

Fascinating!!! And beautiful.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks for the thread. I was going to ask about the difference.

 

[Skippy123]

great thread

 

[diamonds-are-friends]

very nice designs for people looking for unique looks.

 

[yennyfire]

I finally got a couple of decent shots of my ring. HTH anyone looking for this style of setting....

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I finally got a couple of decent shots of my ring. HTH anyone looking for this style of setting....

Yenny - your ring is ultra-yum!!! Love it.

 

[Skippy123]

I finally got a couple of decent shots of my ring. HTH anyone looking for this style of setting....

OMG Gorgeous!!!! Do you have a thread?

 

[Skippy123]

I finally got a couple of decent shots of my ring. HTH anyone looking for this style of setting....

OMG Gorgeous!!!! Do you have a thread?

 

[Sky56]

Beautiful ring, yennyfire!

Here are two pictures of somebody's vintage ring. I found the pictures on-line a while ago.

 

[Skippy123]

Beautiful ring, yennyfire!

Here are two pictures of somebody's vintage ring. I found the pictures on-line a while ago.

I love the milgrain