3 stone CAD help

[tyty333]

Hi Fellow PSers

Looking for a few eyes/input on my 3 stone CAD from DK. Anything out of order? The Round side stone is showing 1.95mm but
it should be 4.95 mm (which I think is correct in the drawing part of the CAD).

Here is the CAD from DK...


My current change is to
- move the 2 prongs on the side stone(s) to be inside of the 2 prongs of the Center stone. I don't want to see prongs if I don't have to.

Now, the side stone dilemma...
I'm not sure I like how they are set into the shank. I'm a little limited to what I can do because the setting is 2 tone with the shank being yellow gold and
the prongs/baskets being white gold. Here are the options If I could get some feedback, please.

1. Leave it as is. It looks good.
2. Sort of have them floating. Just use the prong coming off the side of the shank and two prongs coming off of the center stone prongs. It would be totally empty under the side stones.
3. Have DK put the side stones on donuts. I think this would require the center stone donut to be bigger so that all the donuts sort of connect up.
4. Any other ideas?

By floating (2), I mean something like this. These side stones must be pears or something really shallow because you dont even see any pavilion.


Example of 3...couldnt really find a setting similar to what I'm trying to do but you probably know what I mean by 3 donuts. I'm just talking about how the
prongs connect to the shank. For this option the prong configuration from the CAD would not change.


If you have any other comments/feedback, please let me know!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am a little concerned about the center basket being so different from the sides. I prefer a more cohesive look where all three baskets are similar for this style. The center is sort of Victorian and the sides are modern, which can clash a little IMO. Center has a donut and other don't. So from this I suspect you can guess I am not wild about option 2, which I think exaggerates the contrast in styles even more than it already is.

I might also worry a little about only three prongs on such large side stones... but lots of people do that so maybe its not a concern.

What is the overall aesthetic you want? What do your other pieces look like? Do you want to lean into modern or vintage or are you hoping to achieve a pleasing mix? Can you post your inspo?

 

[MissGotRocks]

I guess that is why the more traditional three stone rings have a four prong center. Setting with a six prong center has been done but seems like more in line with a trellis type setting - like the Butterflies setting. I do think it can be done though - just takes a bit more tweaking.

From the first picture, it looks like the side stone prongs are side by side of the center stone prongs. However, the side stone prongs should sit lower than the center stone prongs and will be wrapped around the side stones. Not sure if it would make any difference if they were put into the space between the center stone prongs. I would ask about that.

My three stone ring has a donut on the base of the center stone which I asked WF to add. The side stones don't have donuts. I did this to keep a small amount of space between ering and wedding band and because there is a wedding band against the donut, you don't even see it in real life.

I honestly don't like the empty space under the side stones in the one iteration - just looks unfinished to me.

I would ask for the shoulders of the 12:00 and 6:00 prongs be shaved down as much as possible. I don't like seeing a protrusion of those prongs when you look at the ring head on - if that makes sense.

I like the way the shank comes up on the sides of the side stones to make the third prong. Unless you went to a four prong setting for the side stones, I don't know how else you would incorporate it. I know you are trying to keep it uniform looking without looking messy or too prongy (is that a word? lol)

Just some thoughts as I am assuming DK can probably throw out some suggestions as well. . .

 

[tyty333]

I am a little concerned about the center basket being so different from the sides. I prefer a more cohesive look where all three baskets are similar for this style. The center is sort of Victorian and the sides are modern, which can clash a little IMO. Center has a donut and other don't. So from this I suspect you can guess I am not wild about option 2, which I think exaggerates the contrast in styles even more than it already is.

I might also worry a little about only three prongs on such large side stones... but lots of people do that so maybe its not a concern.

What is the overall aesthetic you want? What do your other pieces look like? Do you want to lean into modern or vintage or are you hoping to achieve a pleasing mix? Can you post your inspo?

Thanks for your input @Dreamer_D ...

After sleeping on it, I decided #2 was out. I also do not like the big contrast between the center and the empty space next to it.
So, yeah, that one is eliminated.

I tend to lean more modern (but love the look of antiques), so maybe it's a pleasing combo of both? I'm more of a
"simple", not too fussy kind of girl.

I started with the WF Butterfly setting, but the trellis part was too busy for me, so I turned it into "baskets." I also
want a yellow shank with white gold baskets, which a trellis setting does not lend itself to.
I want to stick with 6 prongs on the center stone. I love the look of how the center stone, side stones, and shank
sort of all flow together with the 3 prong sides. No interruption to the eye, IMO.

Here is the top view of what I like to see. I think DK CADs captured this quite well. This ring belongs to a PSer, but I can't remember who. It is a trellis, though. So then the dilemma is how to do the side stones so that it all looks cohesive.



Here is a trellis side view...just FYI so you know where I'm coming from.


There is one other option. I'm not sure how well it will work for 2 tone...something like this
for the side stones. I wonder if the white gold metal can come off the center donut? I think if this donut was bigger it might work
a little better for mixed metal.


Another option using the above design would be to add prongs off the cross prong for the side stones. Something like below.
So bigger donut, prongs coming off donut to go to outer side of side stones, then another prong coming off that to go on
inner side of side stones. Somewhat mimics the center stone basket (in my mind). Need to see it in a CAD to actually get
a feel for it though. May be too much going on or, may be ok? Not sure.

 

[Rfisher]

My current change is to
- move the 2 prongs on the side stone(s) to be inside of the 2 prongs of the Center stone. I don't want to see prongs if I don't have to.

I think this idea is well worth exploring. With a wax of both to compare with the long prongs clipped and stones printed in, as a mock-up . We’ve seen a few three stone settings with the side stone inner prongs pointed in a way that may look askew from the center stone prongs when viewed head on that some don’t enjoy- and I think this is a consideration in wanting the side stones center prongs set in a certain way.

Now, the side stone dilemma...
I'm not sure I like how they are set into the shank. I'm a little limited to what I can do because the setting is 2 tone with the shank being yellow gold and
the prongs/baskets being white gold. Here are the options If I could get some feedback, please.

1. Leave it as is. It looks good.

I don’t think it looks incohesive as is, but I would entertain widening the bottom of each basket a bit. With or without baskets. This would keep your two tone cast separate and assemble plan, as your drawn mock-ups wouldn’t be able to do. Unless only your center is white.

1. Sort of have them floating. Just use the prong coming off the side of the shank and two prongs coming off of the center stone prongs. It would be totally empty under the side stones.

Personal opinion on floating sides is I don’t enjoy them but I know others do. I think your mock-up is nice for that style.

1. Have DK put the side stones on donuts. I think this would require the center stone donut to be bigger so that all the donuts sort of connect up.

This is just playing with basket angles, if that’s an option, not the donuts all connecting because they’d have to be even straighter than this to connect - but something inbetween.

1. Any other ideas?

How attached are you to the center stone basket design?
If you aren’t - wildcard thrown out there would be I’d entertain asking DKJ to come up with a 3-6-3 prong/petal version of what they did for Mrs-b’s old soli. If it’s possible? The bottom half of basket will have to be widened a bit (&shortened?)or sidestones tucked in more, would be my guess.
This one.


it will loose the angles that make it so pleasing - but it also might become something totally different that’s pleasing in its own way.

 

[tyty333]

I guess that is why the more traditional three stone rings have a four prong center. Setting with a six prong center has been done but seems like more in line with a trellis type setting - like the Butterflies setting. I do think it can be done though - just takes a bit more tweaking.

From the first picture, it looks like the side stone prongs are side by side of the center stone prongs. However, the side stone prongs should sit lower than the center stone prongs and will be wrapped around the side stones. Not sure if it would make any difference if they were put into the space between the center stone prongs. I would ask about that.

My three stone ring has a donut on the base of the center stone which I asked WF to add. The side stones don't have donuts. I did this to keep a small amount of space between ering and wedding band and because there is a wedding band against the donut, you don't even see it in real life.

I honestly don't like the empty space under the side stones in the one iteration - just looks unfinished to me.

I would ask for the shoulders of the 12:00 and 6:00 prongs be shaved down as much as possible. I don't like seeing a protrusion of those prongs when you look at the ring head on - if that makes sense.

I like the way the shank comes up on the sides of the side stones to make the third prong. Unless you went to a four prong setting for the side stones, I don't know how else you would incorporate it. I know you are trying to keep it uniform looking without looking messy or too prongy (is that a word? lol)

Just some thoughts as I am assuming DK can probably throw out some suggestions as well. . .

Thanks for your feedback @MissGotRocks !

Can you look at my previous post and give me your feedback on that other option for prongs at the bottom of the post?

I definitely want the side prongs to go inside the 2/4 and 8/10 prongs of the center stone. Definitely a more cohesive look.
I think the pics I sent DK had it that way but...they must have missed it.

I also wanted a small donut for the same reason you decided on one...to hold off wedding bands a little bit.

We're all in agreement with the empty space setting (option 2). That one is out!

The 12/6 prong view. I hear you on this one. I was questioning myself if I wanted to see them. I'm going to go look
at some settings with the overhang and some 6 prongs without the overhang, and decide if I want to see that extra metal.
In general, I don't like seeing extra metal.

Yes, prongy is a word!

I added a lot of info in the above post. Can you comment on that possible other prong option...thank you!

Edit...I was wondering if you have a side view of your setting? I dont think I've ever seen one of your ring.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Have you gone though DKs entire IG feed to see if he has ever done something close to what you like?

 

[tyty333]

I think this idea is well worth exploring. With a wax of both to compare with the long prongs clipped and stones printed in, as a mock-up . We’ve seen a few three stone settings with the side stone inner prongs pointed in a way that may look askew from the center stone prongs when viewed head on that some don’t enjoy- and I think this is a consideration in wanting the side stones center prongs set in a certain way.


I don’t think it looks incohesive as is, but I would entertain widening the bottom of each basket a bit. With or without baskets. This would keep your two tone cast separate and assemble plan, as your drawn mock-ups wouldn’t be able to do. Unless only your center is white.

Personal opinion on floating sides is I don’t enjoy them but I know others do. I think your mock-up is nice for that style.

This is just playing with basket angles, if that’s an option, not the donuts all connecting because they’d have to be even straighter than this to connect - but something inbetween.



How attached are you to the center stone basket design?
If you aren’t - wildcard thrown out there would be I’d entertain asking DKJ to come up with a 3-6-3 prong/petal version of what they did for Mrs-b’s old soli. If it’s possible? The bottom half of basket will have to be widened a bit (&shortened?)or sidestones tucked in more, would be my guess.
This one.


it will loose the angles that make it so pleasing - but it also might become something totally different that’s pleasing in its own way.

Thanks for your feedback @Rfisher ! Much appreciated!

Thanks for bringing up a wax. I think I'm going to need one on this ring. It can be so hit or miss with the angle of the side
stones and the position of the prongs. A wax would help put it all in perspective.

Seems we're all in agreement with the empty space option...I've eliminated that option!

The basket mockups...your editing is so much nicer than mine! Its good to see the CADs with a bigger donut because I was
leaning that way, but now that I see it it kind of messes with the nice lines of the center basket in my mind.

I'm now wondering if the top of the shank (under the stones) can be done in all white gold. Would that look weird? It might help
add other prong configurations back into the mix.

Ah, Mrs B's old soli...such a pretty basket. See, this is where I can love and appreciate others' pieces but can't see them
on me. I'm kind of a simple girl but do love a little some'in extra.

 

[tyty333]

Have you gone though DKs entire IG feed to see if he has ever done something close to what you like?

Yes! It took me forever but I did go through all the 3 stone pics. The trellis (or WF Butterflies) is the closest to what I like
from the top view but I dont really want trellis. A little too busy for me.

There was a setting on FrankDarling that I liked. I need to go have another look at it and see what they're doing with the side stones.

Edit...does that mean your not fond of the option I added to post #4 at the bottom? It would really help to have a CAD version
to know how it really would look.

 

[Dreamer_D]

This option has potential but I think making it two tone would be hard. With two tone it needs to be cast in two pieces and assembled by hand, but this design doesn’t lend itself to that easily. I am also not a super fan of prongs that “dangle” like the inner prongs on the side stones… they appear out of nowhere and attach to the crossbar on the basket which is not the most elegant, though in person that wouldn’t be super apparent. But you lose the six prong center you like! It does solve as issue I personally have with the original CAD which is the large gaps between the side prongs and the center stone prongs.

Let me poke around and see if I can find something, or play around with the CAD a bit. I think you will get there with some patience! Ideally you find a gallery view you love and go from there.

 

[tyty333]

Dangling prongs . Have to admit, that's a new one for me but now that I know what its called I'm going to steal that term!

On the above picture, the center prong pattern would still be the 6 prong like I like. It's just the side stones I'm referring to.
I think the only way to do it would be to have a taller donut and have the side prongs come off the upper part of the donut
(above the shank).

Or...I mentioned this in my last post (post #8 )

Have the top part of the shank under the baskets be white gold. I'm referring to the part circled in green. I looked around and
did find some 3 stones where this whole under gallery was the same color as the baskets/prongs and not the same color as the
rest of the shank. This might make it easier to do whatever prongs/baskets I want.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Dangling prongs . Have to admit, that's a new one for me but now that I know what its called I'm going to steal that term!

On the above picture, the center prong pattern would still be the 6 prong like I like. It's just the side stones I'm referring to.
I think the only way to do it would be to have a taller donut and have the side prongs come off the upper part of the donut
(above the shank).

Or...I mentioned this in my last post (post #8 )

Have the top part of the shank under the baskets be white gold. I'm referring to the part circled in green. I looked around and
did find some 3 stones where this whole under gallery was the same color as the baskets/prongs and not the same color as the
rest of the shank. This might make it easier to do whatever prongs/baskets I want.

Yes I absolutely thing the part you circled should be WG. I think just having the tiny donut in wg and the rest of the bridge yellow would not be as cohesive. My five stone is like this and I think it looks great, like yellow gold hands gently holding the platinum bridge. My three stone has a YG bridge and only the prongs are platinum, which I also like, but the way your CAD is currently it is neither one nor the other and I'm not sure that would work as well.



I don't think "dangling prongs" is any kind of technical term either! It was just something i grabbed to describe the look. I think what you have going on in your CAD is better, the only part that needs some finessing is the inner prongs on the side stones and perhaps the way the prongs connect to the bridge... I think that could be more elegant. I want to play around drawing a little tonight! I will post some ideas later.

 

[tyty333]

I like the way your 5 stone looks with the all white bridge. So far these are my changes

- move the two prongs on side stone(s) to be inside the prongs on the center stone (prongs 2,4, and 6,
- make bridge all white gold

Here is another thing I'm considering...going with 4 prongs on the side stones in a 12/3/6/9 positions. While
searching around Pricescope I ran into a thread where someone had lost an ACA in a 5 stone. It was the last
stone before the shank started and it was held in by 3 prongs. Someone did mention this above.

I need to mock this up to see how it will change the look of the top view and decide if I like it or not.
Still have the issue of how the prongs connect to the bridge and trying to make that look a little more cohesive.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks for your feedback @MissGotRocks !

Can you look at my previous post and give me your feedback on that other option for prongs at the bottom of the post?

I definitely want the side prongs to go inside the 2/4 and 8/10 prongs of the center stone. Definitely a more cohesive look.
I think the pics I sent DK had it that way but...they must have missed it.

I also wanted a small donut for the same reason you decided on one...to hold off wedding bands a little bit.

We're all in agreement with the empty space setting (option 2). That one is out!

The 12/6 prong view. I hear you on this one. I was questioning myself if I wanted to see them. I'm going to go look
at some settings with the overhang and some 6 prongs without the overhang, and decide if I want to see that extra metal.
In general, I don't like seeing extra metal.

Yes, prongy is a word!

I added a lot of info in the above post. Can you comment on that possible other prong option...thank you!

Edit...I was wondering if you have a side view of your setting? I dont think I've ever seen one of your ring.

Haha! So much for the empty space under the side stones - look at these pics of my ring! I guess in your CADs they look more pronounced, but in looking up close at my ring, they have some empty spaces! I tried to take some close up shots of my ring so that you could hopefully see how the side stones are set lower than the center. In your CADs, It looks like all of the prongs for center and sides are on the same plane which of course they are not. Particularly if the side stones are dropped down. Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think of the pics. I know some of these will come out large but I was hoping you could see the detail!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Haha! So much for the empty space under the side stones - look at these pics of my ring! I guess in your CADs they look more pronounced, but in looking up close at my ring, they have some empty spaces! I tried to take some close up shots of my ring so that you could hopefully see how the side stones are set lower than the center. In your CADs, It looks like all of the prongs for center and sides are on the same plane which of course they are not. Particularly if the side stones are dropped down. Anyway, take a look and let me know what you think of the pics. I know some of these will come out large but I was hoping you could see the detail!

Dangling prongs! They work in this very modern design. I see your donut is also yg.

@tyty333 Id like to suggest adding small donuts to the sides and keeping the side stone prongs where they are but angle the stems to match the angles in the center more and move them to tuck up next to the center stone prongs… I dont think moving them inside the center prongs will work the way you hope and will create bulk and make the sides less stable (because the expanse of stone that isn’t enclosed by probgs will be large…. But I’d like to draw these suggestions and see what you think!

 

[tyty333]

Thanks for the big pics @MissGotRocks ! We know in reality that these "empty spaces" are very tiny! Your ring is such a classic.
Did WF do your setting or DK? Your white prongs on your side stones mesh very well. I don't think the peg heads on my side
stones mesh very well (just talking about where they connect to the bridge). I'm beginning to think there may not be a better
option, though.

@Dreamer_D I thought moving the prongs inside the center stone prongs would make them less visible. I understand it wouldn't
do as good of a job at securing/holding the stone (and I hate that).

Here is one of DK's rings...you can see the prongs are on the inside of the center stone prongs. I like this look, but sure would
like it to be more secure!

I'd be happy if you drew something up. Pictures help so much! I think I'm going to pop over to Maytal Hannah's website and see
what designs she's got going on. Thanks for your help!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Thanks for the big pics @MissGotRocks ! We know in reality that these "empty spaces" are very tiny! Your ring is such a classic.
Did WF do your setting or DK? Your white prongs on your side stones mesh very well. I don't think the peg heads on my side
stones mesh very well (just talking about where they connect to the bridge). I'm beginning to think there may not be a better
option, though.

@Dreamer_D I thought moving the prongs inside the center stone prongs would make them less visible. I understand it wouldn't
do as good of a job at securing/holding the stone (and I hate that).

Here is one of DK's rings...you can see the prongs are on the inside of the center stone prongs. I like this look, but sure would
like it to be more secure!

I'd be happy if you drew something up. Pictures help so much! I think I'm going to pop over to Maytal Hannah's website and see
what designs she's got going on. Thanks for your help!

My setting was a pre-made setting bought many years ago. It has housed several diamonds in my upgrade journey even before Whiteflash. For my last diamond, however, Whiteflash had to make a whole new head to insert between the side stones. I actually like this one so much better. The original head had almost a U shape at the bottom and this head is straighter but still is a bit of a U. Just not as pronounced as the original. They really did a good job with it!

So my ring has two pieces of metal coming straight up on bothouter sides that the prongs are made of and then the yellow gold shank comes up to those prongs. Gives a little more design element and creates stability. Might be helpful for the security of the side stones?

 

[tyty333]

Pretty impressive you've been able to keep your setting over a few upgrades @MissGotRocks . The modifications are
undetectable so, "nice job" to WF.

In other news...
I looked at Victor Canaera's settings yesterday and was surprised to see several three stones with empty spaces under the sides
(0 prongs coming from shank)
Maytal Hannah only had baskets and trellis 3 stone settings (nothing unusual or different).
Steven Kirsch had very few round 3 stones and nothing unusual.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Pretty impressive you've been able to keep your setting over a few upgrades @MissGotRocks . The modifications are
undetectable so, "nice job" to WF.

In other news...
I looked at Victor Canaera's settings yesterday and was surprised to see several three stones with empty spaces under the sides
(0 prongs coming from shank)
Maytal Hannah only had baskets and trellis 3 stone settings (nothing unusual or different).
Steven Kirsch had very few round 3 stones and nothing unusual.

I have had this setting for 22 years! It has been a good one and unless I ever decided to go with an all white metal, there would be no need to change it. I do think I am at the size limit for it though so probably no more upgrades with this ring!

I guess the empty spaces under the sides is for real - a real hoot for me to look at my ring again and realize I had empty spaces!! So will you talk to DK again about the prongs, etc.? I guess there really are only so many versions of a three stone and it sounds like you are looking for a 'clean' version. No trellis, not a lot of prongs, and incorporate the six prong head. Hopefully, he can send you a wax so you can see what it would look like and how it will set on your hand. I have tried on lots of rings that I have thought were pretty only to find out that I didn't like the way they looked on my hand. That is one of the reasons that I have stuck with mine because it seems to fit my hand well.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Here is a three stone ring showing swoopy struts from the center to the side stones. Not a six prong center, but it gives you an idea of the look in one of the rings you posted above but this in a two tone ring.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Here is a three stone ring showing swoopy struts from the center to the side stones. Not a six prong center, but it gives you an idea of the look in one of the rings you posted above but this in a two tone ring.

This feels in keeping with what you want and I can see the center six prong working with it.

And listen if the dangling prongs/spaces underneath are good enough for @MissGotRocks and Canera it’s obviously a good option too!

 

[MissGotRocks]

This feels in keeping with what you want and I can see the center six prong working with it.

And listen if the dangling prongs/spaces underneath are good enough for @MissGotRocks and Canera it’s obviously a good option too!

Haha @Dreamer_D! It was good enough for me - so good I didn’t realize that I basically had the same thing! Lol! I guess the space in real life is just not as noticeable as it is in up close pics. Anyway, this could be an option for her.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Haha @Dreamer_D! It was good enough for me - so good I didn’t realize that I basically had the same thing! Lol! I guess the space in real life is just not as noticeable as it is in up close pics. Anyway, this could be an option for her.

Yes it is a clean and modern look. I do wonder if it fits best with a more modern central basket like you have.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yes it is a clean and modern look. I do wonder if it fits best with a more modern central basket like you have.

Just a typical three stone with a four prong center. I do understand wanting a six prong center for the rounded look and extra protection. Might have to forego the perfect side view to get the elements that are most important to her. I am still thinking that DK might work some good magic for her.

 

[tyty333]

That new setting you posted @MissGotRocks is similar to this one I posted above... Which would only work if the top part of the shank is done in white gold. I'm good with that.

So I think I'll have DK CAD up the side stones like this and decide between the original and this. I may have them add smaller
donuts next to the center donut for the side stone prongs to come off of.


The one you posted would work great if I wanted to keep the yellow gold shank, but I really want a donut.

Thanks again for your help @MissGotRocks and @Dreamer_D !

 

[Dreamer_D]

I tend to really focus on the gallery view as it’s what I see looking at my rings and I like delicate, detailed, ornate galleries… but I realize others have different priorities.

That new setting you posted @MissGotRocks is similar to this one I posted above... Which would only work if the top part of the shank is done in white gold. I'm good with that.

So I think I'll have DK CAD up the side stones like this and decide between the original and this. I may have them add smaller
donuts next to the center donut for the side stone prongs to come off of.


The one you posted would work great if I wanted to keep the yellow gold shank, but I really want a donut.

Thanks again for your help @MissGotRocks and @Dreamer_D !

yeah I’m liking this direction for you!

 

[MissGotRocks]

That new setting you posted @MissGotRocks is similar to this one I posted above... Which would only work if the top part of the shank is done in white gold. I'm good with that.

So I think I'll have DK CAD up the side stones like this and decide between the original and this. I may have them add smaller
donuts next to the center donut for the side stone prongs to come off of.


The one you posted would work great if I wanted to keep the yellow gold shank, but I really want a donut.

Thanks again for your help @MissGotRocks and @Dreamer_D !

Yeah, my entire shank is in yellow gold and so is the donut that WF added. Only the prongs are in platinum. Not sure how they could have divided that any other way. Didn’t you say you wanted a yellow gold shank? Will be anxious to see the next CAD - onward and upward!!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Yeah, my entire shank is in yellow gold and so is the donut that WF added. Only the prongs are in platinum. Not sure how they could have divided that any other way. Didn’t you say you wanted a yellow gold shank? Will be anxious to see the next CAD - onward and upward!!

Yeah @tyty333 have you right about making the donut YG? Then the bridge could all be yg like the example MGR posted above. I like that for your design.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yeah @tyty333 have you right about making the donut YG? Then the bridge could all be yg like the example MGR posted above. I like that for your design.

I suppose you could rhodium plate the bridge under the diamonds. However, that would have to be replated every so often. Not sure how much difference or impact that part of the ring being white would matter - unless it is just a choice for aesthetics. I feel like for stability purposes, the entire shank needs to be a continuous piece of one metal. Trying to join pieces might not be safe, but I am not a jeweler. Again, I am sure DK can advise correctly. Always a chance, however, that I have misunderstood her intent.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I suppose you could rhodium plate the bridge under the diamonds. However, that would have to be replated every so often. Not sure how much difference or impact that part of the ring being white would matter - unless it is just a choice for aesthetics. I feel like for stability purposes, the entire shank needs to be a continuous piece of one metal. Trying to join pieces might not be safe, but I am not a jeweler. Again, I am sure DK can advise correctly. Always a chance, however, that I have misunderstood her intent.

I’m not sure what you are suggesting but this is what I am talking about:

The options are to cast the shank and bridge in yg and the prongs/baskets in white, like your three stone and mine. Like this example but add a yg donut.



Or cast the shank in yg and cast the bridge and donut and baskets all in wg. Like my five stone. It is safe to do that, the bridge and baskets are a single piece of metal and attach to the shank where it meets the bridge.

Tyty is taking about the latter. I asked if she had considered the former as I think it could look good.