Opinions on milgrain: antique v. modern

[fanboy]

Date: 6/20/2007 4:02:14 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
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.

A post-modernist, then?

 

[omieluv]

Date: 6/20/2007 4:00:15 PM
Author: fanboy

Date: 6/20/2007 3:53:16 PM
Author: omieluv

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.

The prices are as follows: ~$5k for Leon, $10k for Taffin.

I have personally consulted with both in person. Taffin's design sense is much closer to my own than Leon's, but Leon could still do something as directed by me. Taffin hates milgrain, Leon thinks my ring calls for it.

I can understand your situation, it is not a question of talent, because we know that both are very gifted, it is a question of design orientation. In a perfect world you would go with Taffin, since Taffin seems to match with your ideals more than Leon. Since cost is a factor, however, I can understand the draw to Leon, you just may need to communicate your preferences more often. Who knows, perhaps between the both of you, together the final product will combine multiple design elements, which will add further enhancement to the ring. So maybe working with someone from a different creative orientation may work to your advantage. That is IF you are able to avoid asking the WHAT IF question: "What if I went with Taffin?"

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/20/2007 2:08:42 PM
Author: fanboy
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.

I know what you mean by timeless... and IMO you have two choices (JMO of course lol) One is to go with very classic ala tiffany - never goes out of style. The other is to go totally unique - never comes IN to style LOL Everything else comes and goes. I want a ring that doesn''t look like any particular decade so I''m throwing everything I love into the ring and not caring if anyone else will like it.

In 20 years you need to be most concerned with, "has it held up?" Whether or not it has milgrain will mean *zilch* if you''ve had so many problems with the durability of the melee or the impracticality of the design. My biggest concern would be the 3 sided melee or the pave. I personally wouldn''t consider either of those for a ring I wanted to last 20 years, worn every day. For a cocktail or occasional ring sure, and how thin are we talking for the band? Now, that doesn''t mean you can''t have melee, its just something to think about, again My opinion.

If they can cut diamonds the size of dust it will not mean people won''t want them the size of pinheads, it just means there will be other options. If you ignore what is trendy or not trendy and truly get what you *like*, you will love it no matter what comes and goes.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 6/20/2007 4:03:22 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 6/20/2007 3:46:17 PM

Author: fanboy

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.

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.

I agree. I know 5K is a lot but sometimes it's just worth it to know you are going to get exactly what you want. Leon could have easily made something close to my ring for a lot less money too. I still went with the designer I choose b/c it was what I really wanted deep down although the larger pricetag delayed things I know I will be worth in the end.

ETA: i also think 1.3mm for an everyday pave e-ring is just way to thin to hold up for 60 years. if Taffin is telling you that it will, get it in writing with a promise to replace it if it doesn't hold true. I honestly would not go thinner than 2mm in a pave ring, that is still soooooo thin and if your spending all that money for the tiny diamonds, might as well be big enough to see them...

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/20/2007 3:42:46 PM
Author: fanboy
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.

Again, I am going to be practical and take a moment to consider what abuse the ring will take over 20 years to GET you to the point where it is still alive enough for you to have spent the time to consider whether or not it will look dated then. I *do* think 1.3mm pave bands are a fad or a trend. I have no faith in something like that lasting 20 years. Would I get a 1.3mm band? Yeah, but not for my every day ring holding a diamond.

 

[mrssalvo]

lol sara, you and i were typing at the same time....

 

[elmo]

I can't understand any criticism of being detail oriented on this setting - Pricescope is the place where two-tenths of a degree pavilion angle or the type of inclusion in a VS1 stone will make or break a purchase.

Unless what you decide on is unlike other pieces he does, I wouldn't let Leon's preference for milgraining make or break the decision to let him do this one. But if you like Taffin's work better overall, it sounds like you've made up your mind.

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 6/20/2007 4:03:22 PM
Author: decodelighted


Sounds like Taffin is the choice then ... Consider the extra 5K a sanity tax.

DITTO.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/20/2007 4:16:12 PM
Author: mrssalvo

I agree. I know 5K is a lot but sometimes it''s just worth it to know you are going to get exactly what you want. Leon could have easily made something close to my ring for a lot less money too. I still went with the designer I choose b/c it was what I really wanted deep down although the larger pricetag delayed things I know I will be worth in the end.

ETA: i also think 1.3mm for an everyday pave e-ring is just way to thin to hold up for 60 years. if Taffin is telling you that it will, get it in writing with a promise to replace it if it doesn''t hold true. I honestly would not go thinner than 2mm in a pave ring, that is still soooooo thin and if your spending all that money for the tiny diamonds, might as well be big enough to see them...

LOL I think maybe 3mm rings might be the best for weathering the trends... they seem a bit thin when the trend is 6-8mm rings... and they seem a bit thick when the trend is 1-2mm rings... but they''re neither thick nor thin LOL Okay now I''m just making stuff up LOL

 

[fanboy]

$5k pays for sanity, but it also--apparently--pays for insurance against damage to the diamond while in Taffin''s possession. It was quite funny actually, without even being prompted, James mentioned "every guy on 47th (the Diamond District) will tell you it''s normal not to have insurance against damage on the stone; that''s ridiculous; we insure everything."

I subscribe to the school of thought where the design approaches timelessness the more unique it is to its specific purpose. In other words, if this ring is totally unique, doesn''t reflect any particular time period, but merely serves the beauty of the stone, then it won''t go out of style--ever.

James knows the ring will be worn daily, but I will make sure to confirm that the 1.3 mm width is practical. It would be one row of pave, not three, however.

 

[omieluv]

Date: 6/20/2007 4:29:27 PM
Author: fanboy
$5k pays for sanity, but it also--apparently--pays for insurance against damage to the diamond while in Taffin's possession. It was quite funny actually, without even being prompted, James mentioned 'every guy on 47th (the Diamond District) will tell you it's normal not to have insurance against damage on the stone; that's ridiculous; we insure everything.'

I subscribe to the school of thought where the design approaches timelessness the more unique it is to its specific purpose. In other words, if this ring is totally unique, doesn't reflect any particular time period, but merely serves the beauty of the stone, then it won't go out of style--ever.

James knows the ring will be worn daily, but I will make sure to confirm that the 1.3 mm width is practical. It would be one row of pave, not three, however.

Glad to hear that if you were to pay the extra $5k, your ring will be insured in addition to the fact that you will be working with a designer who matches your design philosophy. Sounds like the extra cost is justified and well worth it for you, especially since you want this ring to stand the test of time. I am no expert, but 1.3 does sound a bit thin in terms of durability, but I am sure Taffin and others much more informed that I will be able to guide you. Please also consider the daily activities of your fiance when making your final decision as her activities will influence how much abuse the ring will need to be able to withstand.