kcoursolle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 10,612
Opinions on milgrain: antique v. modern
- Thread starter fanboy
- Start date
- Status
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
LOL. Fanboy... no offense but I think this is where you are losing site of the forest because you are too focused on the trees. Does it really matter WHY you are considering it? Whether it''s a matter of cartier... etc, etc. DO YOU LIKE THE LOOK? And does it, in your opinion add, detract, or do nothing for the overall design.
For me, which I like the deco feel blah blah blah... it ultimately boils down to the fact that I like the setting (as a whole) better with it than without it If I was setting a round, or princess in there I''d still want the milgrain. Why? Because I like the way it looks.
That''s the bottom line. Forrest, not the tree.
For me, which I like the deco feel blah blah blah... it ultimately boils down to the fact that I like the setting (as a whole) better with it than without it If I was setting a round, or princess in there I''d still want the milgrain. Why? Because I like the way it looks.
That''s the bottom line. Forrest, not the tree.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
neatfreak
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,174
Aww come on, it's not so simple! I want the ring to be timeless (or as close to timeless as one can reasonbly expect). Of course, technology and times change, but even if they can cut ever smaller diamonds one day--and set them--it will be apparent that this ring was made with the best craftmanship available in its own day.
However, milgrain is not subject to the same timeliness. 20 years from now, when one looks at a ring with milgrain, will they think "oh, that's what technology allowed back then" or "oh, antique-style rings were fashionable at that time"? I think more than likely the latter. But again, my experience with design doesn't reach into the realm of jewelry, where I acknowledge that every element is necessarily ornamental in some way.
Anyone ever read The Fountainhead? How would Howard Roarke design a ring for Dominique?
EDIT: I'm not trying to impress anyone else. I'm trying to create a ring that supercedes what I, my girlfriend, or anyone else likes at the moment in order to create something beautiful over a long period of time.
However, milgrain is not subject to the same timeliness. 20 years from now, when one looks at a ring with milgrain, will they think "oh, that's what technology allowed back then" or "oh, antique-style rings were fashionable at that time"? I think more than likely the latter. But again, my experience with design doesn't reach into the realm of jewelry, where I acknowledge that every element is necessarily ornamental in some way.
Anyone ever read The Fountainhead? How would Howard Roarke design a ring for Dominique?
EDIT: I'm not trying to impress anyone else. I'm trying to create a ring that supercedes what I, my girlfriend, or anyone else likes at the moment in order to create something beautiful over a long period of time.
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
Yes. We've reached it. Analysis paralysis. You have begun to take yourself WAY too seriously. It's as if you'll be defending this e-ring like a disseratation or something. You won't have to explain to people why you chose what you did ... and what your INFLUENCES were (???!!!). Confident folks just say "I liked it". Self-concious people "explain". At IMO.
ETA: THANK GOODNESS you're not THE BRIDE!
Well, I''ve picked away surgically at all the things I care about. I know others may think I''m taking things too seriously, but that''s how I roll; and keep in mind, that''s partially why my girlfriend loves me!
At any rate, I have yet to be paralyzed by analyzing anything. I find that I just wind up happier with my choices. Obviously, if there was a bomb strapped to my chest with a clock ticking down, I''d have to decide faster with less thinking, but be it as it is, such is not the case.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
surfgirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
I agree with Gypsy. Just go with what you like. You say you want "timelessness", well then go with Leon Mege and let him decide on what is timeless as his designs are all timelessly elegant, whether or not they incorporate millegrain or not. If you want a clean lines look, more modern timeless, go without. If you want more old world timeless, go with millegrain. I would still suggest that you go shopping, if only by yourself, and look at more designs until one speaks to you. I know a lot of guys come here and say "my gf wants to be surprised. She wants me to pick out the ring..." Trust me, your gf might say that, but she KNOWS what she REALLY wants. And if she doesn''t she should figure that out before you drop 20k on a ring that might not make her heart sing! Just my two cents as I step off the soapbox now. Good luck.
Well, for discourse! It''s easier to analyze when different ideas and points-of-view are available. I''m not expecting anyone to decide for me, but I want to make a well-informed decision.Date: 6/20/2007 2:21:23 PM
Author: Ellen
Then why are you asking us??
I know, I know, there''s a chance she may not really want to be surprised, but that''s just a chance I''m going to have to take. Questioning the hypothetical isn''t helping me get anywhere. You might as well forget that it''s me deciding and not her.
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
Ya *do* realize that "how you roll" is gonna change when it''s two making the decisions, in tandem.
Stephanie
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,164
Oh God, let's not even joke about blowing up this ring . . .
Yeah, my 'gut' is more or less ambiguous on the matter. My 'brain' is conflicted. On the one hand, the bright-cut pave complements the octagonal stone with its rectangular edges, but the milgrain seems superfluous and no milgrain leaves a lot of metal showing. Micro-pave, without a rounded edge, provides a purer form and shows less metal, but makes the pave prongs more difficult to resolve, and provides less definition for the form of the ring.
See the conundrum? If I do bright-cut pave, the edges are an issue. If I do micro-pave, the prongs are an issue. Neither is perfect.
So, maybe I should take a step back: are there any other reasons to prefer either the bright-cut pave or the micro-pave? I'm not even sure what the structural differences are other than the edging: the pave stones are the same size (doesn't that make the bright-cut pave also micro-pave?).
Yeah, my 'gut' is more or less ambiguous on the matter. My 'brain' is conflicted. On the one hand, the bright-cut pave complements the octagonal stone with its rectangular edges, but the milgrain seems superfluous and no milgrain leaves a lot of metal showing. Micro-pave, without a rounded edge, provides a purer form and shows less metal, but makes the pave prongs more difficult to resolve, and provides less definition for the form of the ring.
See the conundrum? If I do bright-cut pave, the edges are an issue. If I do micro-pave, the prongs are an issue. Neither is perfect.
So, maybe I should take a step back: are there any other reasons to prefer either the bright-cut pave or the micro-pave? I'm not even sure what the structural differences are other than the edging: the pave stones are the same size (doesn't that make the bright-cut pave also micro-pave?).
Stephanie
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,164
Haven
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,166
I can''t speak for Howard Roarke (although BF did gift me a first printing of the book last year, my favorite gift ever!) BUT I agree that is seems like your instinct is saying "NO!" to the milgrain.
I think Gypsy and Deco had the best advice--do you like the look, or will you find yourself explaining it rather than enjoying it? This ring is a symbol of a promise between the two of you, what best represents that? (And leave postmodern design theory out of it!)
I think Gypsy and Deco had the best advice--do you like the look, or will you find yourself explaining it rather than enjoying it? This ring is a symbol of a promise between the two of you, what best represents that? (And leave postmodern design theory out of it!)
Stephanie
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,164
omieluv
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,146
Hey fanboy - 1st, I do think it is wonderful that you are taking the time to ask questions and explore several options before deciding on a setting for your fiance''s ring. She is very lucky to have a partner who is actively interested in the ring development process.
I am probably safe in my assumption that you have studied engagement ring styles from the Edwardian period through today and you have probably seen quite an assortment. In each period, styles were influenced by the events and tastes of that specific period, much like clothing style. You also know that "style" itself varies and you will see what was popular in past years emerge, though not exactly the same in modern times.
Your concerns of looking at the ring 20 years down the road and wondering if the style will look "dated" is something I think people take into considerration when deciding on a ring (well at least I have). However I think it is not likely to say that popular styles of today or even in the past will have little influence on your final selection.
You have already hinted that you want the setting to enhance the diamond, am I correct? If so, continue with that line of reasoning to design the ring. So, when designing the ring, ask yourself if each element adds or subtracts from the beauty of the diamond (which I think you have started to do) rather than looking to design a ring that mirrors a setting from a certain point in time. This way, you will end up with a product influenced by your ideals, rather than trying to replicate a piece from a specific time period.
Keep in mind though, that unless you really think way outside of the box and create something that is more artistic in nature (one that will defy modern + past ring design), you may end up with a ring that mirrors a style from any given time period anyway b/c designers tend to try to design a ring that will enhance the beauty of the diamond anyway (unless they are asked to make a replica or the client has other ideas). Will the design stand the test of time, not sure, but from what I have been seing through responses on this site is the more difficult it is to place the ring in a specific time period makes it "timeless" (just my opinion though).
Good Luck!
I am probably safe in my assumption that you have studied engagement ring styles from the Edwardian period through today and you have probably seen quite an assortment. In each period, styles were influenced by the events and tastes of that specific period, much like clothing style. You also know that "style" itself varies and you will see what was popular in past years emerge, though not exactly the same in modern times.
Your concerns of looking at the ring 20 years down the road and wondering if the style will look "dated" is something I think people take into considerration when deciding on a ring (well at least I have). However I think it is not likely to say that popular styles of today or even in the past will have little influence on your final selection.
You have already hinted that you want the setting to enhance the diamond, am I correct? If so, continue with that line of reasoning to design the ring. So, when designing the ring, ask yourself if each element adds or subtracts from the beauty of the diamond (which I think you have started to do) rather than looking to design a ring that mirrors a setting from a certain point in time. This way, you will end up with a product influenced by your ideals, rather than trying to replicate a piece from a specific time period.
Keep in mind though, that unless you really think way outside of the box and create something that is more artistic in nature (one that will defy modern + past ring design), you may end up with a ring that mirrors a style from any given time period anyway b/c designers tend to try to design a ring that will enhance the beauty of the diamond anyway (unless they are asked to make a replica or the client has other ideas). Will the design stand the test of time, not sure, but from what I have been seing through responses on this site is the more difficult it is to place the ring in a specific time period makes it "timeless" (just my opinion though).
Good Luck!
Well, I just got off the phone with James at Taffin. The $10k price is solid; he won''t budge.
At any rate, according to him, he''d never do milgrain on any of his work. According to him, it has no place in a modern aesthetic, which is in line with my initial take. He''d do one-sided micro-pave on a 1.3mm band, not three-sided on a 1.8mm band.
At any rate, according to him, he''d never do milgrain on any of his work. According to him, it has no place in a modern aesthetic, which is in line with my initial take. He''d do one-sided micro-pave on a 1.3mm band, not three-sided on a 1.8mm band.
Those are my sentiments exactly and why I was hesitant about the milgrain. I''m not trying to replicate a time period, but quite the opposite. When I say I want a modern ring, I mean one that comports with modernist ideals (form follows function, etc.), not a ''contemporary'' ring.
I think I''ve pretty much decided against the milgrain. Now the problem is that Taffin is much more comfortable doing no milgrain than Leon Mege, but Leon is much cheaper.
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
I''m having milgrain done on my ring and my ring isn''t very antique. It has elements of antique and elements of very modern and my opinion on it is if you want it use it. You don''t have to have an antique styled ring to use it IMO. It is a design element and can be used anywhere you want. Some might not think it is the most congruent piece in the world, but if you like it, who cares?
omieluv
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,146
I have not priced either option, but I would have to assume that you have reviewed "non-miligrained" settings by both designers? I have never dealt with Leon, but given so many positive responses regarding his work, I do not think going with him would be a bad route, unless he flat out turns down your business, but I doubt he would.
mrssalvo
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 19,132
fanboy, I feel your pain. I have thread upon thread trying to choose a setting for my upgrade and I''m and picky down to the tinest detail myself so I can see why this *little thing* is so big. I love lots of rings and ring styles from antiques to more modern classic. So my setting choice had to be something that I could be content with forever and i didn''t want a ring that would look dated either. In my own decision, I went with the less is more theory and to keep the design as simple as possible but including the few big things that were important to me..i.e I want a 3 stone ring. I think clean lines would be more classic and timeless because you aren''t trying to get an antique looking ring here. All that to say, I vote no milgrain
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
its funny that you brought this up because I was going to use columns in architecture in my last post and decided against it LOL
You could be a purist but I tend to be more of a merger or bridger. I don''t think just sticking one element against a vastly different element alone is necessarily going to look best, BUT there are elements you can add that bridge other elements together. Like in color... two blues might not look at all good together, but if you have a third blue that ties them together, you can make it work. Some of my favorite architecture blends different styles... the right architect could combine my love of gothic windows, corinthian columns, victorian wrap around porches and turrets, and cantilevered balconies and make it all fit together. Not everyone could do it, but I''ve seen similar things done and it is amazing and unique and beautiful and even yes, congruent in its own way. You can wildly mix materials if you follow the same style... you can wildly mix styles if you join them with details and materials.
Thank you for the commiseration, mrssalvo. It''s a big deal! I''ve never spent so much money on one thing before. ''Less is more'' is similar to my thinking, with the caveat that jewelry is inherently ''more''.Date: 6/20/2007 3:58:56 PM
Author: mrssalvo
fanboy, I feel your pain. I have thread upon thread trying to choose a setting for my upgrade and I''m and picky down to the tinest detail myself so I can see why this *little thing* is so big. I love lots of rings and ring styles from antiques to more modern classic. So my setting choice had to be something that I could be content with forever and i didn''t want a ring that would look dated either. In my own decision, I went with the less is more theory and to keep the design as simple as possible but including the few big things that were important to me..i.e I want a 3 stone ring. I think clean lines would be more classic and timeless because you aren''t trying to get an antique looking ring here. All that to say, I vote no milgrain
What do you think about spending the extra $5k on Taffin?
decodelighted
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 11,534
Sounds like Taffin is the choice then ... here's my reasoning: no matter how "perfect" the non-milgrained, cheaper Leon is you'll ALWAYS wonder if the Taffin would have been "better". You'll wonder if the extra 5K would have been "worth it". Especially since you share the aesthetic philosophy of Taffin. Leon is known for his antique styles & his milgrain. Even if he is "cheaper" -- his specialty isn't in the style you prefer. This will haunt a perfectionist like yourself forever. Consider the extra 5K a sanity tax.
neatfreak
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,174
Well, I think you need to do what YOU want. Sounds like you''re thinking no milgrain, which I think is a great choice. I have a pave ring without milgrain and it just looks so modern and refined, while still being a HINT antiquey. Love it.
Leon has done many gorgeous rings without Milgrain, so I am sure if you let him know you would prefer it without, he can oblige.
- Status
Engagement Ring Trends 2025: Styles Set to Shine
Engagement Ring Trends 2025: Styles Set to Shine - 01/15
300x240.png)