WWPS do - reset, refurbish, or keep as-is?

[Circe]

Okay, y'all: moment of truth. When confronted with a gorgeous antique and an opportunity to possibly improve on it, do you go whole hog, take half-measures, or leave well enough alone?

I finally put my thread up in SMTR - feast your eyes, babies! and join me in praying for sunshine, so I can get some decent pictures - here's a linky so you can get a decent look: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ng-2-5-carats-of-transitional-cut-joy.166379/

I'll add a few images down below and a profile shot so you don't have to go out of your way (and so I don't have to repost all the images!).

So, here's the thing: initially when I was shopping, I was assuming that I'd blow the whole budget on the stone and have to put it in the simplest setting possible, to reset for next year's "official" five year anniversary. Instead, I'm left with about a third of the budget, so I can probably get my dream setting ... but should I? The stone is in great shape - the girdle is very thin at points, and there's a natural, but no chips, and the fishtail prongs provide more protection that most settings, so I shouldn't be too paranoid - and the setting is in pretty good shape, which I bet my bench could fix completely. It's a little dinged up, and it looks like the original owner wore bands on either side because the metal bows in slightly, but ... on the whole, things are copacetic.

So I find myself stricken! David Wolf, whom I went to for my appraisal, said it was a crime to go messing with antiques that survived in good shape, and called it a time capsule: he also didn't think that faceting the girdle would necessarily improve the color. And it measure 1.4 as a FIC on the HCA, so it's not like it needs a recut - it's a shiny little firecracker. So it's basically a question of ... I dunno, gathering ye roses while ye may. Hence the poll!

 

[pmbspyder]

i think it's beautiful and would keep it as is, but i'm not the one that has to wear it! good luck with whatever you decide to do!

 

[Laila619]

I too would leave it as is. It pains me to think of you putting that beauty in a bezel! Nooooo!

And congrats on the ring!

 

[Gypsy]

I think it's lovely. But not a RHR. I would re-set it. But perhaps use the marquise from this setting in the new one?

 

[ForteKitty]

gasp! she can't take that setting apart!!! if you must reset, please sell the setting to a good home.

 

[Dreamer_D]

If you planned to wear it as an engagement ring I would say leave it alone. BUT I love a diamond ring on the right hand middle finger... but not in that style. I think you should reset it for the RHR but save the mount and sell it or perhaps set it with a gem for a travel ring??

 

[MissStepcut]

I voted "refurbish" but I am a little scared it might be damaged in the process...

 

[yssie]

Can I vote refurbish and reset? Have Ari polish the girdle - so long as it's not a high risk, then have Van Craeynest work magic with a setting

Not that the current setting isn't very pretty, 'cause it is, but if you have the option VC is just a whole different level of luxury I think! Your stone is GORGEOUS

 

[LGK]

I wore that exact setting with my 2 ct transitional. Exact. It's cool but... I don't know, I didn't love and adore it really.

I'd reset that baby. You won't be doing the setting any damage at least. I'd go with either Van Craeynest or Victor, well, because I love and adore both their work. Tapered french cut setting from Victor ? I know they're PS-popular right now but IRL, totally and completely unique. It'd look killer with that stone. Not that I'm biased or anything!

Which Van Craeynest?

Oh, and BTW: did Dave think that was the original setting? The one I had was brand new- Wanna Buy a Watch has them for sale, the exact same. Could be an exact copy of yours if it's actually the original one. It looks like the right era- '30s- to be set with that type of TC.

 

[Circe]

Ooo, lots of food for thought! And it looks like leaving things be is slightly in the lead? Fascinating!

i think it's beautiful and would keep it as is, but i'm not the one that has to wear it! good luck with whatever you decide to do!

Thanks, PmbSpyder!

I too would leave it as is. It pains me to think of you putting that beauty in a bezel! Nooooo!

And congrats on the ring!

Heheheh - not a fan of bezels, I take it? Mind if I ask why? I've always loved them for the added size, and the security, and the kind of ... crisp delineation of the shape of the stone that they provide ... but I also know most people don't share my feelings. I just don't get why!

I think it's lovely. But not a RHR. I would re-set it. But perhaps use the marquise from this setting in the new one?

I don't think I'd have the heart to totally demolish the setting: I'd probably keep it as-is and keep an eye out for a nice Ceylon sapphire, or maybe the baby's birthstone.

gasp! she can't take that setting apart!!! if you must reset, please sell the setting to a good home.

ForteKitty, with you! Totally with you! I might be guilty of mild heresy, but I wouldn't stoop to total desecration ...

If you planned to wear it as an engagement ring I would say leave it alone. BUT I love a diamond ring on the right hand middle finger... but not in that style. I think you should reset it for the RHR but save the mount and sell it or perhaps set it with a gem for a travel ring??

Oooo, excellent ideas! Why don't you like the style for a RHR? Is it too engagement-y? If it weren't for the fact that it looks like my actual e-ring's big sister, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about keeping it ... but, either way, I'd definitely keep the setting for something.

I voted "refurbish" but I am a little scared it might be damaged in the process...

That's one of the things holding me back a little, too - the setting could survive a lot, I think, but every time a diamond goes to the wheel, there's a risk. Ari has a wonderful reputation, and I'm insured, so ... hopefully it wouldn't even be an issue. But still!

Can I vote refurbish and reset? Have Ari polish the girdle - so long as it's not a high risk, then have Van Craeynest work magic with a setting

Not that the current setting isn't very pretty, 'cause it is, but if you have the option VC is just a whole different level of luxury I think! Your stone is GORGEOUS

Yssie, thanks! I'm hugely tempted for just that reason - I mean, what else do I have that's worthy of a VC? I'm talking to them about possibilities now ... expecting some possibilities Monday. Very excited!

I wore that exact setting with my 2 ct transitional. Exact. It's cool but... I don't know, I didn't love and adore it really.

I'd reset that baby. You won't be doing the setting any damage at least. I'd go with either Van Craeynest or Victor, well, because I love and adore both their work. Tapered french cut setting from Victor ? I know they're PS-popular right now but IRL, totally and completely unique. It'd look killer with that stone. Not that I'm biased or anything!

Which Van Craeynest?

Oh, and BTW: did Dave think that was the original setting? The one I had was brand new- Wanna Buy a Watch has them for sale, the exact same. Could be an exact copy of yours if it's actually the original one. It looks like the right era- '30s- to be set with that type of TC.

I stumbled across your thread when I was searching transitionals last night! And, yep, it's an uncanny family resemblance. Dave Wolf thought this setting was original, and hand-fabricated. Thanks for helping date it! Something about it definitely looks older than my e-ring to me, but I figured that could just be the stone influencing my perception ....

I actually LOVE tapered French cuts, and one of my alternate setting ideas is something like the model below from Single Stone. First, I'm trying to see if VC can do a custom piece that's not in their catalogue, with different motifs: if that's not an option, this style will probably more to the front of my list, though possibly in a slightly more delicate iteration ....

 

[quaddio]

I chose the last option for three reasons:

1. Anything different risks being less pleasing than the current
2. Your style preferences have changed and may change again so it may not be a wise investment
3. A new piece could satisfy your creative urges

 

[bright ice]

It's a gorgeous stone whatever you do with it.

 

[slg47]

love that last setting you posted...that gets my vote!

 

[Laila619]

Hi Circe,

I just don't care for bezels because I feel like they 'hide' a lot of the stone, for lack of a better word. I love seeing all of the stone, edge to edge...especially since yours is such a beauty! Plus sometimes they can darken up a stone. But obviously it's your ring, so you get what makes you happy of course!

 

[Circe]

Hi Circe,

I just don't care for bezels because I feel like they 'hide' a lot of the stone, for lack of a better word. I love seeing all of the stone, edge to edge...especially since yours is such a beauty! Plus sometimes they can darken up a stone. But obviously it's your ring, so you get what makes you happy of course!

Thanks for explaining, Laila - definitely not argumentative about it, just wondering why they have a bad rep, sometimes. Thanks for clarifying! It *is* nice to be able to see every angle ....

 

[LGK]

If you get someone to make a delicate bezel, I think they're second to none for showing the stone's patterning. I didn't actually expect that until I had my OEC in one- and OMG you don't realize how much the patterning is interrupted by prongs until you see the stone without them. It just... makes the pattern POP. I'd love to see yours in a bezel by Van Craeynest!

I'd for sure think it was '30s. The fishtail prongs weren't really popular 'til then, and the stone's cut could definitely date to that point- by the '40s the detailing had kind of changed, with more YG being mixed in particularly. I have looked at a lot of ads for antique rings recently though, and it's pretty obvious that vendors still had older stock that they sold for a decade or so later than they would've actually been manufactured. So it could've been made in the '30s, but not set and sold til later, interestingly enough.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think the setting is beautiful and would vote to keep it as it. . . but, in your case it is so close to your ering that I'm just not sure I'd love two rings that are that similar.

Bezels are pretty settings too but I wouldn't want to hide or detract light from the stone.

My real option for you would be to wear this as your ering and reset your ering stone into another ring. I'm guessing that you totally wouldn't want to do this as there is an emotional attachment to your ering and I totally get that. Given all of that, I'd probably look around for another setting for this stone - particularly if you want to wear it on your middle finger.

As for the girdle polish, I don't know that I'd do that. Doesn't seem like you are going to get a lot of benefit from it so why take the chance of possibly causing damage to the stone?

It's a lovely stone and I hope the setting fairy bestows something heavenly on you for a reset! I think I could totally think about the french cut sidestone rings - perfectly beautiful!!

 

[Jennifer W]

For Gods sake, woman, enjoy your ring and leave well enough alone.

That's how I voted, anyway... In a supporting, loving sort of way...

Remember how we all wanted to cry a little when we learned that people re-cut OMCs, OECs and transitional cuts into modern RBs, and sometimes not such great ones at that? I think I'm starting to feel equally devastated by knowing that we're picking the best stones out of their antique settings and putting the into modern interpretations, however lovely.

I know, I know. It isn't quite the same (and oh, how I would love a sapphire in a setting like that one) but for what it's worth, I'd be on the conservation side of the fence here.

Of course, my opinion is worth what you paid for it, so you could either forward a nice fat cheque or ignore me...

 

[Circe]

If you get someone to make a delicate bezel, I think they're second to none for showing the stone's patterning. I didn't actually expect that until I had my OEC in one- and OMG you don't realize how much the patterning is interrupted by prongs until you see the stone without them. It just... makes the pattern POP. I'd love to see yours in a bezel by Van Craeynest!

I'd for sure think it was '30s. The fishtail prongs weren't really popular 'til then, and the stone's cut could definitely date to that point- by the '40s the detailing had kind of changed, with more YG being mixed in particularly. I have looked at a lot of ads for antique rings recently though, and it's pretty obvious that vendors still had older stock that they sold for a decade or so later than they would've actually been manufactured. So it could've been made in the '30s, but not set and sold til later, interestingly enough.

That's one of the things I love about bezels, I think - while there are some prong-set designs that can complement a cut's pattern, for me a lot of them interrupt the flow. Well done 8-prong settings are among the exceptions for me: so too fishtail prongs. Guess it's the visual echo of the 8 LGFs ...

And, fascinating! Even given how much I love fishtail prongs, I have only a vague sense of the history of their application - I "feel" like this setting is older than my e-ring (something about the bezeled side-stones as opposed to the baguettes, mainly), but it's good to have it corroborated by an expert! And, oh, how I am envying your access to the ads for antique rings - I would LOVE to see those. So cool!

I think the setting is beautiful and would vote to keep it as it. . . but, in your case it is so close to your ering that I'm just not sure I'd love two rings that are that similar.

Bezels are pretty settings too but I wouldn't want to hide or detract light from the stone.

My real option for you would be to wear this as your ering and reset your ering stone into another ring. I'm guessing that you totally wouldn't want to do this as there is an emotional attachment to your ering and I totally get that. Given all of that, I'd probably look around for another setting for this stone - particularly if you want to wear it on your middle finger.

As for the girdle polish, I don't know that I'd do that. Doesn't seem like you are going to get a lot of benefit from it so why take the chance of possibly causing damage to the stone?

It's a lovely stone and I hope the setting fairy bestows something heavenly on you for a reset! I think I could totally think about the french cut sidestone rings - perfectly beautiful!!

I will say, I think bezels get a bad rap (probably because so many of them are clunky, ugly, badly done things - Sturgeon's Law, that 99% of everything is crap). A well-done bezel shouldn't interfere with light performance at all ... and I'm sticking to considering the best craftsmen out there if I reset. But you're probably right about the recut - given that I'd promptly be covering the girdle up, there's no real point to polishing it and risking the stone on the wheel. Logic, I love it!

I can see what you mean about the e-ring, too - that's a modern stone in a vintage setting, this is a complete antique ... but I just love my e-ring too much to mess with it. We'll see if I wind up feeling the same here! It does sort of give me a twinge to think of altering it.

For Gods sake, woman, enjoy your ring and leave well enough alone.

That's how I voted, anyway... In a supporting, loving sort of way...

Remember how we all wanted to cry a little when we learned that people re-cut OMCs, OECs and transitional cuts into modern RBs, and sometimes not such great ones at that? I think I'm starting to feel equally devastated by knowing that we're picking the best stones out of their antique settings and putting the into modern interpretations, however lovely.

I know, I know. It isn't quite the same (and oh, how I would love a sapphire in a setting like that one) but for what it's worth, I'd be on the conservation side of the fence here.

Of course, my opinion is worth what you paid for it, so you could either forward a nice fat cheque or ignore me...

Heheheh - this made me laugh. And, yes, I DO, which is one of the things sort of giving me pause ... that, and the fact that I really like all the details on this ring and every variation I've seen is almost, but not quite, perfect.

I came thisclose to jumping on a VC setting that a PS'r is selling last night, and at the last minute I backed out (which I feel guilty about), just because the idea of a thicker shank made nervous. Sigh ... I have the sneaking suspicion that I will either wind up accidentally recreating another near-identical version of this setting, or go for something so very, very different that it's just light-years away, like the Krikawa dragonfly ring. But, whatever I do, last night made me realize that, while I normally love a deal, on this, I am going to take my time and wait for perfection. This ring survived, what, 80 years already? It can probably go indefinitely until I find something that makes my heart sing ....

 

[vintagelover229]

I LOVE the current setting but it would also look great with a colored stone or sold for another lucky woman who'd wear it as an e-ring.

I vote for either SS or VC bezel setting with some french cuts like the one you have picture or like LGK has (it is my DREAM DREAM setting you have LGK and my SO said I could rest it in that and if it didn't cost as much if not more than my entire set I would have considered it. Someday for a smaller RHR I hope to do a sapphire bezel with some french cut side stones but that's YEARS away).


Beautiful ring though and great find!

 

[decodelighted]

I think I'm starting to feel equally devastated by knowing that we're picking the best stones out of their antique settings and putting the into modern interpretations, however lovely.

I have those feelings too. Like gorgeous antiques are being disrupted out of HASTE. If people just waited to find the whole package they love -- like Surfgirl's -- these kind of frantic swaparounds wouldn't be happening .. at least AS OFTEN.

 

[Circe]

I think I'm starting to feel equally devastated by knowing that we're picking the best stones out of their antique settings and putting the into modern interpretations, however lovely.

I have those feelings too. Like gorgeous antiques are being disrupted out of HASTE. If people just waited to find the whole package they love -- like Surfgirl's -- these kind of frantic swaparounds wouldn't be happening .. at least AS OFTEN.

Heheh - even though I generally lean towards your position (and may, even in this case, lean towards your position and only be entertaining the idea of a reset due to spousal pressure, and/or the sense that a leftover budget should be used fruitfully), in defense of stone-swappers, I will say that, a) as beautiful as old settings are, sometimes they're not in the best condition, and, b) it's amazing what kind of a difference shopping for a vintage ring as opposed to shopping for a loose vintage stone can make, budget-wise.

I mean ... even with Surfgirl's ring, there were a lot of issues with the setting. I stumbled across a bunch of her threads when I was reading up on transitionals, and she talked about the setting being a little wonky, needing to reshank, etc. - things that a vintage lover will do without batting an eye, but things that can get pricey. I haven't checked yet, but I bet getting a ring refurbished by a jeweler like Single Stone probably costs as much as a lower-rank designer setting.

And as for budget ... hoo! That's one of the reasons I started the OEC/Rap thread - loose old cuts are officially 'spensive, Lucy! So I don't necessarily judge harshly, so long as the settings are preserved. It's when they're scrapped for metal weight that I just want to cry ....

 

[decodelighted]

I think I'm starting to feel equally devastated by knowing that we're picking the best stones out of their antique settings and putting the into modern interpretations, however lovely.

I have those feelings too. Like gorgeous antiques are being disrupted out of HASTE. If people just waited to find the whole package they love -- like Surfgirl's -- these kind of frantic swaparounds wouldn't be happening .. at least AS OFTEN.

Heheh - even though I generally lean towards your position (and may, even in this case, lean towards your position and only be entertaining the idea of a reset due to spousal pressure, and/or the sense that a leftover budget should be used fruitfully), in defense of stone-swappers, I will say that, a) as beautiful as old settings are, sometimes they're not in the best condition, and, b) it's amazing what kind of a difference shopping for a vintage ring as opposed to shopping for a loose vintage stone can make, budget-wise.

I mean ... even with Surfgirl's ring, there were a lot of issues with the setting. I stumbled across a bunch of her threads when I was reading up on transitionals, and she talked about the setting being a little wonky, needing to reshank, etc. - things that a vintage lover will do without batting an eye, but things that can get pricey. I haven't checked yet, but I bet getting a ring refurbished by a jeweler like Single Stone probably costs as much as a lower-rank designer setting.

And as for budget ... hoo! That's one of the reasons I started the OEC/Rap thread - loose old cuts are officially 'spensive, Lucy! So I don't necessarily judge harshly, so long as the settings are preserved. It's when they're scrapped for metal weight that I just want to cry ....

I do see both sides. I'd guess that it's more often people swapping for *style* purposes rather than *structural integrity*. I think I'm overempathizing with the families that weren't able to hold onto their heirlooms - because other needs took priority. Folks who don't care & sell ... live & let live! Awesomesauce. But those who really, really wished they could hang onto Grandma's ring or whatever. That breaks my heart a teensy bit. Just a teensy. Of course, you're talking to someone who is losing $$ hand over fist in energy costs because I refuse to replace the original windows in my oooolllldddd house. Gawd. I really need an intervention.

 

[yennyfire]

Can I vote refurbish and reset? Have Ari polish the girdle - so long as it's not a high risk, then have Van Craeynest work magic with a setting

Not that the current setting isn't very pretty, 'cause it is, but if you have the option VC is just a whole different level of luxury I think! Your stone is GORGEOUS

I'm with Yssie. If you're going to reset it, this is what I'd do. Such a tough call, b/c it's gorgeous as-is!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don't feel that there are sacred cows in the settings of these older rings, personally. Enough will survive as a record of the times, we don't need all of them.

You asked why I don't like tha tring for a RHR... it is mostly practicality, I feel like that type of solitaire, with a stone that large, is just asking to catch on things and be annoying when you dig in a pocket, pick up your kid, run your hand through your hair. All of this assumes you are right handed. I like a RHR to be lower profile, and if not bezel, then set so the shank swoops up to meet the girdle in some way so the whole piece is smoothly integrated more with the hand. Purely functional, which is an important element of esthetics in my book.

 

[Gypsy]

I don't feel that there are sacred cows in the settings of these older rings, personally. Enough will survive as a record of the times, we don't need all of them.

Agree. Plus most of the time we re-set them on PS with colored stones... totally in keeping with the era.

And I didn't think that's a true period piece. I thought it was a reproduction too.

I know I personally plan to reset the diamond I bought, or buy an unset but the setting I get will be in keeping with the age of the diamond. And I think Circe's desire for a VC is also in complete keeping with the diamonds history. Plus it will make her love it more and wear it more... so win win!

 

[MrsBettyBoop]

I agree with reset the new/old stone. *I* think it's kinda weird to have something so similar to your e-ring and I would personally kill over dead if you reset your e-ring stone instead. Your e-ring is what made me fall in love with fishtail prongs.

I probably wouldn't polish it or anything either. I think it's purdy as is... keeping the oldness, if that makes any sense.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

After looking at your other thread, I would not keep it in that setting because I think it is too similar to your e-ring setting. Plus I think your e-ring setting looks like better quality and condition. My only qualm would be that I wouldn't want a right hand ring with a larger diamond than my e-ring. So if I had this happy problem, I would reset it and alternate it with my e-ring instead of wearing it as a RHR. I'd do a Van Craeynest, personally, but I am not sure I recall seeing one with a bezel. Maybe once it is out of the setting, it can better be determined if it needs a bezel to protect the girdle. I am often one who is sad to see old rings reset, but I do not love this setting enough to keep it as is. Can't wait to see what you decide!!!

 

[Amys Bling]

Reset- salvage the setting and consign it with JbEG!

 

[LGK]

I don't feel that there are sacred cows in the settings of these older rings, personally. Enough will survive as a record of the times, we don't need all of them.

Agree. Plus most of the time we re-set them on PS with colored stones... totally in keeping with the era.

And I didn't think that's a true period piece. I thought it was a reproduction too.

I know I personally plan to reset the diamond I bought, or buy an unset but the setting I get will be in keeping with the age of the diamond. And I think Circe's desire for a VC is also in complete keeping with the diamonds history. Plus it will make her love it more and wear it more... so win win!

Yeah. On one hand, it always makes me so mad to see all the lovely OECs at work that are stuck into really clunky, unattractive '60s era settings- apparently resetting grandma's diamond was quite the mania back then. And I strongly suspect the original setting (which was considered "ugly" back then for sure) was then scrapped.

(I also fascinate on how much tastes change as a whole- that I personally find the '60s, '70s, and '80s YG settings so unattractive, but they *must* come back into style! But, the workmanship isn't the impossible-to-duplicate amazing variety of the previous decades, either...)

But. You wouldn't be scrapping this setting, new or old or whatever. So that makes it a whole different ballgame IMO.