When Al proposed, he had in his hand a flat square box - far too flat and rather too large to be a ring box; for a split second I wasn't sure it was a proposal at all. In the box, though, was a brooch. It had belonged to his Granny, and she suggested he gave it to me (the implication being that it was made into an engagement ring, but Al was cagey on that subject at the time, apparently). I didn't take a photo of the brooch, but by virtue of my astounding Microsoft Paint skills, I can show you what it looked like:
Note, this is about 110% of actual size (on my monitor)
Anyway, apparently he debated quite anxiously over whether to have it made into a ring before he proposed or whether I'd prefer to do it myself. He chose well. I spent a hugely enjoyable time searching the four corners of the internet for ideas. The thing is - there's a limit to what you can do with three round stones which are all the same size. There are wavy, tendrilly designs - which isn't me. There are wishbone shapes - also not to my taste... or there are straight lines. I decided to go for a straight line arrangement, but to add some drama to the profile of the ring by setting the centre stone higher than the others.
I sent Al off to Hatton garden with these two pictures:
I said I wanted the outer two stones set like the first ring (a bezel or rubover setting), nestled quite closely in to the centre stone, which I wanted set on tall, straight prongs (like the second). Apparently, times are hard in Hatton Garden, because when the first jeweller he saw gave him a quote and he went to leave and check elsewhere, she practically leaped across the shop to stop him and cut the price by a third! The work took two weeks, during which time I wore my mum's old engagement ring on my left hand instead of my right, just so I had something there.
And then it came.
Oh the photos don't do it justice - in the light it sparkles like there's a rainbow on fire inside it. The settings (white gold) are very clever: they maximise the amount of light coming to the stones from the sides and below. Each is set at a different angle (following the curve of the ring), so form which every way you look at the front of the ring, there's at least one stone twinkling away. The band itself is 18ct yellow gold. I know white is fashionable, but my mum's ring is also yellow gold - it seems timeless. Also I like the idea of a traditional, plain band of gold for my wedding ring.
I sent Al off to Hatton garden with these two pictures:
I said I wanted the outer two stones set like the first ring (a bezel or rubover setting), nestled quite closely in to the centre stone, which I wanted set on tall, straight prongs (like the second). Apparently, times are hard in Hatton Garden, because when the first jeweller he saw gave him a quote and he went to leave and check elsewhere, she practically leaped across the shop to stop him and cut the price by a third! The work took two weeks, during which time I wore my mum's old engagement ring on my left hand instead of my right, just so I had something there.
And then it came.
Oh the photos don't do it justice - in the light it sparkles like there's a rainbow on fire inside it. The settings (white gold) are very clever: they maximise the amount of light coming to the stones from the sides and below. Each is set at a different angle (following the curve of the ring), so form which every way you look at the front of the ring, there's at least one stone twinkling away. The band itself is 18ct yellow gold. I know white is fashionable, but my mum's ring is also yellow gold - it seems timeless. Also I like the idea of a traditional, plain band of gold for my wedding ring.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting - always nice to know I'm not talking to myself...