Opinions: Cartier VS Tiffany VS self-selection

[oldmancoyote]

I would buy an estate piece for $15k. If I can find it by Cartier (or VC&A, or...), so much the better, but I''d be looking for some design originality rather than the very simple - albeit attractive - settings you have picked.

If I had to absolutely stick to the three choices you have there, I''d choose Cartier.

 

[Pandora II]

If I was buying a brand name I would go for Graff every time over all the others. Their prices aren''t bad either (and you can haggle a bit) and they''ll get the GIA reports out then and there for you.

But... I would prefer a custom setting and a non-branded stone. So I vote for option 3.

(For those that like bragging rights, my husband gets far more of a kick out of saying that we designed my e-ring than he would out of saying that he overpaid at Tiffany...)

 

[Imdanny]

"(For those that like bragging rights, my husband gets far more of a kick out of saying that we designed my e-ring than he would out of saying that he overpaid at Tiffany...)"

Pandora, not to open Pandora's box

) but do you really think your last statement was a fair one?

As to bragging rights, your husband wouldn't be saying that he over-payed. I mean, if a person were bragging about a "name" rather than say "a fine piece of jewelry" - either one of which would be an alien concept to me personally, to be honest), wouldn't it be the OTHER person's perception of the name that would matter?

I'll be honest. Tiffany isn't my favorite jewelery house (VCA is) but I don't think people give Tiffany enough credit sometimes. They did invent that setting and did it a long, long time ago. The design and quality of the setting in the OP's link is "high end" and Tiffany's prices, like every other house's prices, are based, to an extent, on facts like those I have just mentioned.

IMO, Tiffany & Co has some bragging rights, I mean most people in the US consider it the #1 jeweler in the US. And their stuff isn't exactly mall quality.

 

[risingsun]

Cartier, but I would take mine with the pave'', please

 

[rainydaze]

i have to say tiffany because i love that setting and i think they execute it beautifully. but that would be my pre-PS self - if DH had proposed with that it would have blown me away because back then i knew NOTHING about diamonds, brands, and settings. i would have thought i got the best there is and probably never questioned this, loving the ring forever.

post-PS is a whole different story. now i would try for self-selection (spending the 15k for a larger stone or one of higher color).

 

[mercoledi]

If the price difference is that small, give me the Cartier!

 

[grapegravity]

Date: 3/3/2009 1:33:17 PM
Author: risingsun
Cartier, but I would take mine with the pave', please

Me too!!

 

[kamahsutra]

This was pretty much the exact question I had to answer when I chose the ring for my fiance.

And this is how I found the answer:

If she doesn''t care about brands at all - Self Selection

If she cares about brands - then:
What prong setting does she prefer?
If 4 prong then - Cartier
If 6 prong then - Tiffany

My fiance preferred 6 prong branded.

If Cartier had a pretty 6 prong setting, I''d go Catier all the way since the price of the solitaires are pretty much the same. I agree with Imdanny that Tiffany doesn''t get much credit for creating the most copied solitaire setting of all time.

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 3/3/2009 3:47:28 PM
Author: kamahsutra
[snip]I agree with Imdanny that Tiffany doesn''t get much credit for creating the most copied solitaire setting of all time.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
(Charles Caleb Colton)

 

[pepsi_corp]

Thank you for the replies everyone. Sorry so late with my own reply. Have been too busy making the money that will help pay for one of these things!

I enjoyed the variations in answers - it would appear Cartier takes the cake for the most part, with custom coming in second.

Unfortunately, I have never seen the Tiffany 6 prong OR the Cartier 1895 solitaire in REAL LIFE.

For those who have seen it, can you please elaborate on the real life ''look'' of both these settings. Would a 1.3 carat look adequate in either? Which setting would highlight/showcase the diamond the best?

As the Tiffany setting has been reproduced quite a bit, it would not be as hard for me to imagine. It is the Cartier one that has left me scratching my head a bit. One second has me thinking it exudes class, the next has me wondering whether it is too conservative and outdated (after all it is 114 years old!). No offense, but some of the Cartier reproduction attempts I have seen have left me quite unimpressed and have even soured me on the look. I don''t know if it is because the reproductions are just not doing the real 1895 justice, or whether it is because Cartier may have spent millions on marketing and perfect pictures (sorry if I have offended anyone with a reproduction - just my opinion). Yet between Tiffany & Cartier, I continue to be intrigued by the Cartier more...

For those that had made a strong argument for ''custom'', I have not closed those doors completely yet. I''m waiting for the local goldsmith to finish up a couple moulds based on some ideas I had for a custom. I just keep doubting I would personally have the ability to create a setting that would ''wow'' her more than a time & market tested signature setting in a certain blue box or red box. Although she is not a huge brand-monger, I know her heart would still skip an extra beat faster based on the packaging alone(blue or red)- there will always be inherent value to brands which cannot be dismissed.

 

[Deelight]

pepsi_corp I have tried on the Cartier 1895 pave and non pave and both are BEAUTIFUL, I don't have the 1895 but I have an LM ring that is based on the 1895 setting but modified slightly to have a scoopy head and 6 claws and having seen both I think they are both beautiful. I think a 1.3ct diamond would look lovely in that setting to give you an idea of what it looks like IRL I did a forum search for you of some posted with the 1895 ring .

I hope the original posters don't mind me linking to their beautiful rings

Krissie's 1895 pave with a 1.26ct - seriously beautiful

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-1895-pave-solitaire.71702/

with wedding band https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-shots-of-my-e-ring-wedding-band-combo.84870/


Blondie's 1.54ct in 1895 plain shank also beautiful

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finally-my-1895-cartier-engagement-ring.73186/

 

[Imdanny]

I can be so stoopid sometimes.

I didn't realize the name of that setting referred to the date of its creation.

Thanks, OP!

 

[Imdanny]

Blondie''s 1.54ct in 1895 plain shank also beautiful


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finally-my-1895-cartier-engagement-ring.73186/

Whoa. Cartier''s site doesn''t do it justice. I like the simplicity of the non-pave version personally. That is one seriously beautiful ring.