Love those large baroque pearls with the setting 'folded' around their shape - in any form they come from plain metal to anything but plain.
To me, the greatest thing about rings is that they inevitably show one or a few pearls up close, so their character and color gets appreciated without much consideration to matching (as in a strand).
The last memorable pearl ring I've tried on (and unfortunately stopped there about it...) was a very simple one from Paspaley. It looked much like the simple ring-on-band ring posted up this thread, only that the pears were relatively larger (some circle, button and rounds also) and the shank thinner (~2mm) round section, like a wire. I can't even say that the rings were truly eye catchers in the box - all one could see were the pearls. However, the effect of large pearls floating over the hand achieved with these on was something else.
Agreed that some tapering elements are useful for balance on large pearl rings... but frankly, nothing seems to help significantly with a large pearl! Better without, then?
Small, interesting pearls might seem allot more at home on rings - I always loved Widget's trefoil!
And pictures:
The funny 'Galaxy' rings mentioned first were from Paspaley Pret a Porter (bottom-left on the intro page for the collection). Can't link to the specific image on the Flash site.... The general link is
THIS.
Not sure if he next is really 'second' to anything - the 'Sylphides' by Hubert Heldner (
LINK) have been around for a while, always just as fascinating!
There are more (and less surprising, perhaps) pearl things at the same address. Including
THIS...
The pearl rings by William Richey rung the wake-up call on freshwater pearls for me.
In rings, large button pearls rule... wouldn't you agree?
See this
LINK.
Always wanted to have pearls set in a nautical design. And recently, a rope-like ring brought that idea up again.
The combination seems so matter of fact, I wonder why it isn't a common choice. Is it?
