Jewelry

[Sammycat1]

Ambrosia for the finger! I own most of Judith's london blue rings, but this--as DH says--is in a class by itself.

The particulars:

1. The stone IS an elongated, more narrow, oval as Lisa and Judith said, which makes this bold ring not "too much" on the finger. It is proportioned perfectly.

2. The color: Right on the money. Not too light, not too dark. Rich teal blue. NOT a blue sapphire...this has the unmistakable steely blue-green of the best LBT. A gemologist's dream.

3. The faceting of the stone: expertly done to tease out the most light and fire possible from this stone.

4. It doesn't sit up too high off the finger or spin at all. It also has a tapered shank in the back for comfort in wear. This ring has great presence but it's not "gaudy honker" level, if you get my meaning.

5. The diamonique: just enough for additional sparkle. But the main event is the london blue--just as Judith designed it. Everything in this ring has been designed to showcase the beauty of the stone, vs. a design that features numerous elements.

6. Thus, it's not a monaco--and shouldn't or couldn't be. The monacos are lovely but the stones are quartz or onyx for the most part, and they're like gloriously created layer cakes with all sorts of elements working to create a total picture.

This ring is deceptively simple yet complex in its elegance at the same time. The stone is of its exceptional quality and deserves its own spotlight--and of course Judith fashioned the perfect one. Her elements are there, but quietly so: the subtle sparkle of the diamonique on the shanks; the woven berge on the shank; the kiss of diamonique in each prong. But they are the back-up singers and the stone is the star.

Only an artist of Judith's caliber could create this new regal in a ring. And even though it's regal, I would wear this with nice jeans, boots and a turtleneck or white blouse -- maybe with a plain cuff of hers/or one of her watches and the stud earrings.

Bravo, Judith!