Mark Morrell: My initial CAD images are finished!!!

[Kerbear560]

Here's a link to the page on his website with all of the info: http://www.mwmjewelry.com/Danutz/. I'll post all of the CAD images here, along with the comments Mark wrote about them! What do you guys think?

The engagement ring setting in all of the photos is the same item. The lower two images show this ring with 0.01 ct. diamonds in a bead set "channel" running down the center of the ring shank as well as a matching 2 mm wide band - set in a similar fashion.

The engagement ring mounting is built to scale for a size 4 finger and a ~7 mm. diameter diamond. The ring body is 4 mm. wide and is less than two mm. thick at the 6:00 position - becoming thinner as it reaches the center stone. My only suggestion for change might be that the ring shank be tapered a bit toward the back of the ring.

 

[Kerbear560]

I''ve followed the requested styling queues in building this form. While all requested elements are in place in this build, the way in which various requests work together may result in a form that is somewhat different from the image that has been in your thoughts. It is now time to address the form as it is represented.

It might be helpful for you to read through the packet of information that you sent to me in identifying the requested styling queues as you review these images.

 

[Kerbear560]

There can be a "heavy" look to rendered images. This ring is not any thicker than the rings in my images - sent in your packet and seen in my other work. There is now way to show the final, fluid finish of my work in a computer generated image.

Prong tips are represented as well as the software allows. You''ve seen photos of my actual settings and hand shaped prong tips.

Prong diameters in this build are scaled well to provide necessary security for your diamond while not being over-powering to the stone.

 

[Mara]

OMG i love the last two mockups with the bead set diamonds.

otherwise to me the metal looks kind of overpowering on the ring compared to the stone size, maybe it''s due to the ''width'' of the band.

just my two cents though!! whatever you decide, it will be beautiful as per any MM piece.

 

[Kerbear560]

Here''s a version that he did with side stones:

I liked the idea of adding a run of small diamonds through the center of the ring shank so I worked up a version of the ring with 1 pointers and a matching band as well. I don''t think that I''d like to set this ring with a "beadless" channel. The little pronglets add character to this piece and they coordinate well with the 4 prongs on the center diamond while allowing for a more controllable setting process..

 

[Kerbear560]

This image allows for a better view of each ring. The net width of both rings together will be approximately 6 mm.

 

[aljdewey]

I like the band much better with stones in it if you are going to stay with that band width on the e-ring.

Like Mara, my personal preferences would find the plain e-ring band a bit too thick relative to your stone, and the band seems to diminish/overpower the stone.

The modified band with stones, though, breaks up this "heavy" look in the band and draws the attention back up to the center stone. I personally prefer that look more.

 

[Kaleigh]

I like it with diamonds and agree with Mara and Alj. The other version looks a bit heavy, the diamonds definetly help to break it up and is more pleasing to my eye. Just my 0.2.

 

[Mara]

Yes what Al said is what I was thinking too, besides just liking the ''continuity'' of having two matching pieces, I also felt like the expanse of metal on the e-ring was just too plain to be paired with one sparkle w-ring. Now if you were flanking the plain expanse of metal with two eternity rings, kind of like what MINE did...that''d be different. But for me the one thick unadorned ring and one sparkler is a little unbalanced and I also felt my eye looking more at the metal than the stone in those images.

 

[Kim N]

I agree with the others. I love the set with diamonds on the band. Lovely!

 

[stretch4]

I love the e-ring setting with the diamonds!! But of course, all MM masterpieces are gorgeous!!

You can''t go wrong with either one IMO.

 

[MissAva]

I like the concept of the first one, I would just have it be 1.5-2.5 mm thinner. It is so thinck that it makes you stone look small. I also like the second ring, but only if you are going to use that exact band as your wedding band.

 

[Kerbear560]

Thanks for the input guys! I wanted to see what you all thought before I posted my own first impression. Mark really did a really great job taking my ideas and translating them into a ring! But, I agree with everyone here that maybe the first version without the side stones looks like it overpowers my center stone. Do you guys think it might look better if there was a gradual taper towards the bottom of the shank? Or, do you think the whole band should be thinner (I really wanted the band to be as wide as the space between the prongs)? Could it be just that the CAD images are making it appear bulkier than it would actually be?

I really like the second version with the side stones, but I wonder if the matching band would drive me crazy when it spun and didn''t match up with the e-ring...

 

[mrssalvo]

i'm going to go a different way than the rest. I still like plain plat no diamonds on the shank. I agree it needs to be thinner than 3 mm b/c it does make the stone look smaller. i think kberly's 3mm band was on a 1.79 center stone. if he could get it down to 2-2.5 of solid plat. i think it would be fab. i don't love the sidestones in the ring or the band for some reason

which is strange b/c i love the look of bead set pave..

 

[Kerbear560]

I love Kberly''s ring!

I think that the CAD image of her ring made it appear bulkier than it ended up being:

 

[mrssalvo]

i''m sure it will be fabulous. MM isn''t going to let something out that''s not gorgeous. He''ll make it look proportionate, i''m sure of it...

 

[MissAva]

Date: 11/11/2005 5:12:20 PM
Author: mrssalvo
i''m going to go a different way than the rest. I still like plain plat no diamonds on the shank. I agree it needs to be thinner than 3 mm b/c it does make the stone look smaller. i think kberly''s 3mm band was on a 1.79 center stone. if he could get it down to 2-2.5 of solid plat. i think it would be fab. i don''t love the sidestones in the ring or the band for some reason

which is strange b/c i love the look of bead set pave..

I think it is because the bead set pave has so much of a border it looks like a stripe.

 

[mrssalvo]

you could be right mat...

 

[icekid]

yeah, I don''t like that "stripe" look either. But if you decide to go with a thinner band, it shouldn''t end up looking like that.

I''m not even sure what I would do in your position. A MWM solitaire is just so classic and phenomenal. But I do love the pave sparkles, too. Either way, you really can''t go wrong.

I have the sparkles in my current e-ring, but when we get another one (in 10 years?!) I am definitely leaning toward a classic BIG MWM type of solitaire

best of both worlds?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 11/11/2005 5:08:41 PM
Author: Kerbear560

Do you guys think it might look better if there was a gradual taper towards the bottom of the shank? Or, do you think the whole band should be thinner (I really wanted the band to be as wide as the space between the prongs)?

I don''t think so......where it looks chunky to me is on the top. Tapering the bottom won''t solve that.

A question: You mentioned you wanted the band to be as wide as the space between the prongs. Is that because you like that look, or does it have something to do with helping the rings to sit flush?

If you are doing it because you aesthetically like the way that looks....well then leave it as is. You like it, and you''re the one who''ll be wearing it, so your preference is the one that matters.

If you''re doing it so that a ring will sit flush with it, then I''d suggest tapering the shoulders, not the bottom. Let it be wider on the bottom and side, but have it pinch in right before the stone. If you do this, it will keep the wider line on the finger that a band can sit flush to, but it will draw the eye more to the stone.

 

[curlygirl]

Date: 11/11/2005 5:12:20 PM
Author: mrssalvo
i''m going to go a different way than the rest. I still like plain plat no diamonds on the shank. I agree it needs to be thinner than 3 mm b/c it does make the stone look smaller. i think kberly''s 3mm band was on a 1.79 center stone. if he could get it down to 2-2.5 of solid plat. i think it would be fab. i don''t love the sidestones in the ring or the band for some reason

which is strange b/c i love the look of bead set pave..

I agree with mrssalvo. I love the plain platinum shank. I think I agree with Matatora too that it looks a bit like a stripe with the bead set stones. But no matter what you go with, you are getting a STUNNING set. Wow, I''d love a Mark Morrell creation one day...

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

WOW, that is going to be amazing. I love both the solid solitaire with the diamond band and the diamond shank/diamond band. It is going to be lovely. I also like the shank to be thinner than on the first rendering.

 

[ame]

i want that.

 

[pebbles]

I have to agree with the good mrssalvo.

I have a solitaire (not a MWM one - would love to have one though!) that has a 7mm stone and my setting is 3.5mm. I like it but wish it were a bit thinner.

 

[cymbrie]

VERY NICE. I''m not a side diamonds type of gal, but it is very pretty. LOVE Mark''s work, spoke with him last week and he will likely be fabricating my ring too when the time comes

I''m sure your ring will be stellar!

 

[drk]

I think I personally like the plain shank, and I think it looks good with the proportions he's given it. It's a gorgeous ring either with or without the sidestones!

I have a half bezel set ~7mm diamond, and the band is 5mm wide. My wedding ring is 4mm wide. (I've got a size 5.25 finger). I really like the look of my thicker bands, and wanted the ering to be wider so I wouldn't have as much of a gap between the ering and wedding band (I do like the small gap I have). I feel like the thicker band helps stop my ring from spinning too.

It's all a matter of your personal preference. I didn't think thin bands looked right on me, and I wanted something a bit understated too. It seems like a lot of people here seem to want the thinnest band possible to make the stone look as big as possible, but I don't think that choice is right for everyone. Did you try on rings that had similar shank/stone proportions to be sure you know what you like?

Boy am I glad I've already gotten my ring and don't have to make any more decisions! Good luck - I'm sure whatever you have MM make will be amazing.

 

[anika]

How exciting!
The band could be ever so slightly thinner but too much and you are going to lose the look. I guess the look is more like the x prong style?
Also, I''m wondering if the stone needs to sit higher? Maybe thats why the stone looks a bit recessed in the band? I think the plain band e-ring and bead set wedding band will look amazing; not so keen on the stripe down the middle of the e-ring; I think that looks odd.
Its going to be gorgeous!


Anika

 

[ello]

I also prefer the rendering without the diamonds on the shank. Never the less it’s a lovely design. Hope to see hand pictures soon!

 

[Mara]

you could have the w-ring made eternity so even if it spins it''s okay.

or if you really like the solid shank...i''d definitely have him make it thinner. kberly''s ring doesn''t really look bulky even in the cad images, her stone looks much bigger because of the head and also the thinner shank. if you go with solid, i''d definitely drop down that width. unless that is the look you want...in which case it''s perfect.

it definitely depends on what you are going for!!

 

[valeria101]

Like 'them all! The ring in the picture below more than others....

If both rings add to 5-6mm, that is still not much width on the finger. There are so many thinner bands around here, but then you get to wear shacked pave bands next to the ring and what not. So why not just get a more solid ring band in the first place?


Has anyone considered using flust set square diamonds instead of the beaded rounds? Ther would be no ridges next to them and no beads, although the drawings seem to exagerate how prominent these shadows are. Thinking how small 1pt diamond are, that will merely be a dotted line.