Advice/comments on this CAD

[Anonymous]

Hi all, I have been looking at creating a ring similar to the marquise shaped ones I've seen at Gabriel, Beverly K, Tacori, etc. Essentially the band alternates with a marquise/crescent looking object and a hexagon. I'm doing this using Eternity (Yoni) and have written a bit in this thread about it ([URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/increasing-ring-durability-longevity.181801/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/increasing-ring-durability-longevity.181801/[/URL])

These are the images from the "inspiration" ring:






If the images don't show, they are here:

http://tiny.cc/inspr1
http://tiny.cc/inspr2
http://tiny.cc/inspr3

At this point I have received the cast and have a few things I would like changed but I want your thoughts/opinions:

1) Does this look like something that is OK to do using cast or should I ask to switch to hand forged (it's a 1K difference in price). I've gotten conflicting opinions and want to make sure it won't be a problem going the cast route - she is extremely sentimental so if the ring broke she'd be very hurt and if the diamond broke I think I'd flip out (yes, yes I know it's insured).

2) Do you think I should have the hexagon shapes closest to the basket or the marquise shapes?

3) Her fingers are tiny and I know the size will grow and so it'll be hard to size up if there is no sizing bar (again, she's sentimental so she won't want a new ring). I also don't want to deal with the small stones on the bottom getting damaged or falling out so I was thinking of asking for the bottom three shapes to not have stones in them but keep the general shape so that if she ever does increase in size, the marquise shape can be stretched. At the same time if the ring ever turns, the shapes on the ring won't look off. Is this a good idea or should it be just a straight sizing bar?

4) I want split claw prongs (kinda like this http://antiqueengagementrings.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=3853). The ones in the CAD seem to me seem a little too close - like simple double prongs. I was thinking possibly the prong being one unit at the bottom and then opening into two "claws" once it gets to the top. Or perhaps it should stay two prongs but just split more. What do you guys think?

5) Is the height on the diamond OK? And do you think the band should be thinner than 1.9mm?

I would very, very much appreciate your thoughts on these 5 questions please.

These are the CAD images:






If those are too small or don't work, here are the urls:
http://tiny.cc/cadr1
http://tiny.cc/cadr2
http://tiny.cc/cadr3
http://tiny.cc/cadr4

Thank you!

 

[Gypsy]

I think the CADs looks fantastic.

 

[stargurl78]

The CADs look great! I think I would have the hexagons next to the main stone though, rather than the marquises, since the center stone looks like it is covering up half of the marquises. I think I would also have the bottom of the ring just a plain shank for comfort (and sizing) reasons. The ring is never going to turn all the way around because the main diamond will stop it from doing that. But if you like the look of having the design all the way around, I would definitely do the bottom part without diamonds. In regards to your other questions, I think cast is fine for this ring, and the prongs, the height, and the width of the band look perfect to me.

Can't wait to see the finished ring!!!!!!!

 

[chrono]

I think the height of the basket is as close to being as low as it can due to the design. A lower set stone means it is less likely to snagged on clothes, banged around and avoids the top heavy ring pop look. Being set higher gives the illusion of the stone looking slightly bigger. Also, the thickness of the support bar is just right; you don't want it to cover up the beautiful profile of the gem. I love pointy claw prongs and if well done, will be smooth and not catch on anything. Depending on the size of your stone, if small, it probably will have to start as one prong and split at the top. If large enough, I prefer having two separate prongs that open up at the crown.

 

[chrono]

Your stone can definitetly sport the separate double claw prongs look.

 

[chrono]

I'll admit my bias upfront that I dislike the short stubby prong look. I would not thin out the band anymore for structural strength since it is cast and has diamonds in the band.

 

[Anonymous]

OK Updated. The jeweler has recommended the prongs be close together even if they split because it lends itself more to an antique look and allows more of the stone (which is 2 carats) to be seen. Regardless, the ends will be worked on and turned into "claw" prongs.

Which of the two do you guys like?

Thank you!

 

[Lovingwarmdiamonds]

Gorgeous. This looks like a dead ringer for a pricey mimi so e-ring. Re: the prongs I agree re: the closer together prongs so more of the stone can be seen. Unless the center stone is 2 carats or more - I'd go w. that.

 

[Gypsy]

I like the one on the left.

 

[mandasand]

I like the one on the left.

Me too...but I wish you would have left with the marquise shape first.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think it looks gorgeous! I really think you need a straight sizing bar at the bottom, though, because you simply aren't going to be able to stretch that little hexagon to look right, not to mention how much more complicated it would be. Most rings I have seen that had a design on the shank put a plain sizing bar at the bottom and that really works well since that is an area that gets some wear anyway. When you started with the marquise next to the stone, you had a marquise at the bottom which would have been a better size for a sizing bar.

 

[CopperTop]

One more vote for the marquise to be first in the pattern. The current cad may look like purposefully graduated accents when its on a hand and the sides are not seen.

 

[Anonymous]

DS: I spoke with the jeweler about this and they recommended not going with a straight bar and that the shapes could be stretched without a problem.

I'll go with the one on the left but now you guys have me questioning whether to do marquise first or hexagon first. Can anyone else opine? I need to wrap this up today - thank you all!

 

[mandasand]

Blake,
You should do what you think looks best. You have two CADs...one with Marquise first, the other with Hex...which one do you like better? No matter what, it will be lovely. I am concerned with not having a sizing bar. Not only for sizing, but for durability. Having a solid bar at the bottom with no stones will be more durable than an eternity band. But, again, do what pleases you! I can't wait to see the final product. I love this style!!

 

[stargurl78]

It seems like from the front of the ring, the design looks better with the hexagons next to the center stone. If it were me, that would be much more important than what the bottom of the ring looks like. Besides, its possible that she may never have to size it...

 

[Anonymous]

I think at some point ya gotta just pull the trigger. I kept hexagons near the stone.

I will post photos as soon as it's done

Thank you.