Help me set a 3 carat antique Asscher!!!
- Thread starter EricaD
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Thanks all! I'm shipping it off to Leon today, for delivery tomorrow and we shall see what he recommends. I told him I like 3 styles: classic solitaire with skinny shank, pave solitaire like the ones I posted above, or a 3 stone with baguettes small in proportion to the center (long and thin tapered sides). I just waffle back and forth between the 3 styles and can't land 100% on either one! I will say that, for now, the front runners are plain or pave solitaire, with the 3 stone a hair behind... Will keep y'all posted!
And here are examples of the settings I like.
3 stone with traps:
I really like this setting. Whatever you end up with will look amazing!!
I have an asscher three stone, but rather than traps, my sidestones are trillions. I LOVE my ring 
Gorgeous diamond; you're a lucky girl!
Gorgeous diamond; you're a lucky girl!
UPDATE! Just got off the phone with Leon. My goodness, he couldnt be nicer, more cordial, he was downright modest! He even answered the phone on the first ring, knew me by name, had already examined my stone (he just got it yesterday afternoon). The whole thing left me very warm and fuzzy
Right off the bat he said "I dont wanna offend you, but your stone .is not perfectly straight. But I dont wanna hurt your feelings by calling it a crooked stone " LOL, so even though it rated a VG for symmetry, I guess this lends to the likelihood of it being old maybe?
Anyway, he must have macro-vision because he thinks that setting a geometric cut thats not perfectly symmetrical into a solitaire will look crooked (I just cant imagine that it would be noticeable but he is famous for attention to detail, after all!) and he wouldnt recommend a solitaire.
He also wouldnt recommend pave because the brightness and whiteness of pave will detract from the center stone and cause it to look too warm/dark. Being a lover of low color, this would not bother me in the least, however for durability reasons, pave may not be the best choice for me anyway.
He says hes not actually a fan of 3 stones unless its 3 asschers, so scratch that. I found this surprising to hear. Go figure! Or maybe he just meant that he wouldn't like the look with my particular stone.
He thinks the best idea for my stone is a 5 stone, with very steep traps (which he says will make them quite small because he wants them to continue the angle of the clipped corners in a visual straight line) which, in a lower color will make them cheaper, but harder to source. He may have to buy traps of the wrong angle and trim them. He would then set small bullets after the traps which would taper into the shank. I THINK he's suggesting a visual straight line from the clipped corners all the way down to the end of the trap? He says that will make my square emerald look like a "real asscher" with a stronger octagon shape in the center and that it will look "amazing."
I spent a minute sketching out what I think he's gonna do and see what he means about the traps being small. They will be as tall as the center stone, but not wide, giving the overall illusion of a more octagonal shape in the middle with bullets then tapering into the shank. He sounded quite pleased with this idea and will send me a quote ASAP but he may not have side stones located until next week. He will send me pics of my stone with the sides to make sure I like it all put together.
He even said, I understand about budget constraints so if its too expensive or even if I get you stones and you decide you dont like the look after all, you can tell me, its ok and I wont be offended. So my other ideas are still on the table in case I just don't like the look of his 5 stone idea (unlikely).
Mr. Mege couldnt be sweeter. I am utterly stunned at the disparity between my experience and the various negative reports I've read on PS. Weird!
Anyway, I'm excited by his suggestion. He has a cushion 5 stone on his site that I have coveted for years, and the very first setting style I was considering was a 5 stone with traps and bullets. So his recommendation matches my very first gut instinct, though I subsequently went in a different direction because I thought the asscher wouldn't stand out.
What do you guys think? My biggest fear is that the center stone will blend into a big diamond blob. Or that the asscher would not look like an asscher from afar.
Right off the bat he said "I dont wanna offend you, but your stone .is not perfectly straight. But I dont wanna hurt your feelings by calling it a crooked stone " LOL, so even though it rated a VG for symmetry, I guess this lends to the likelihood of it being old maybe?
Anyway, he must have macro-vision because he thinks that setting a geometric cut thats not perfectly symmetrical into a solitaire will look crooked (I just cant imagine that it would be noticeable but he is famous for attention to detail, after all!) and he wouldnt recommend a solitaire.
He also wouldnt recommend pave because the brightness and whiteness of pave will detract from the center stone and cause it to look too warm/dark. Being a lover of low color, this would not bother me in the least, however for durability reasons, pave may not be the best choice for me anyway.
He says hes not actually a fan of 3 stones unless its 3 asschers, so scratch that. I found this surprising to hear. Go figure! Or maybe he just meant that he wouldn't like the look with my particular stone.
He thinks the best idea for my stone is a 5 stone, with very steep traps (which he says will make them quite small because he wants them to continue the angle of the clipped corners in a visual straight line) which, in a lower color will make them cheaper, but harder to source. He may have to buy traps of the wrong angle and trim them. He would then set small bullets after the traps which would taper into the shank. I THINK he's suggesting a visual straight line from the clipped corners all the way down to the end of the trap? He says that will make my square emerald look like a "real asscher" with a stronger octagon shape in the center and that it will look "amazing."
I spent a minute sketching out what I think he's gonna do and see what he means about the traps being small. They will be as tall as the center stone, but not wide, giving the overall illusion of a more octagonal shape in the middle with bullets then tapering into the shank. He sounded quite pleased with this idea and will send me a quote ASAP but he may not have side stones located until next week. He will send me pics of my stone with the sides to make sure I like it all put together.
He even said, I understand about budget constraints so if its too expensive or even if I get you stones and you decide you dont like the look after all, you can tell me, its ok and I wont be offended. So my other ideas are still on the table in case I just don't like the look of his 5 stone idea (unlikely).
Mr. Mege couldnt be sweeter. I am utterly stunned at the disparity between my experience and the various negative reports I've read on PS. Weird!
Anyway, I'm excited by his suggestion. He has a cushion 5 stone on his site that I have coveted for years, and the very first setting style I was considering was a 5 stone with traps and bullets. So his recommendation matches my very first gut instinct, though I subsequently went in a different direction because I thought the asscher wouldn't stand out.
What do you guys think? My biggest fear is that the center stone will blend into a big diamond blob. Or that the asscher would not look like an asscher from afar.
^^ I don't have the imagination to "get" what Leon's proposing but I've never come across a ring he's made that I don't like. A good friend of mine used him and also says he's the sweetest but she, like you, gave him creative freedom which I think he appreciates.
I also can't visualize it, but I'm sure it will still look stunning!
Show us some pics or sketches as soon as you can!
Show us some pics or sketches as soon as you can!