CAD help for my old mine cut cushion engagement ring

[d89s46]

Hello PS’ers. My CADs for my ERing have arrived and I’m having a crisis of confidence thinking the side stones are a mistake. I would love any thoughts or advice. I’ve put my concerns below the pics as well as pics of my stone in its original setting and my inspiration rings. Thank you!






Im trying to reset my 1.4 old mine cut stone in a delicate vintage style which showcases the centre stone. Annoyingly I don’t know the jeweller (my bf wants some mystery given I’ve chosen the actual design!). If you remember I was inspired by Ring Concierge’s antique design and also the delicate vintage style of CvB’s designs. I narrowed my choice down to two designs. The RC and a plain solitaire (pictured). I used the RC antique for my inspiration picture for the jeweller.

I’d really appreciate your thoughts on the a)side stones or solitaire question. And b)any thoughts on the CAD, in particular the measurements? Do they sound right for a delicate vintage style ring? I’m having a crisis of confidence that it’s going to be clunky.

Other thoughts
-I wanted a fairly low profile ring while allowing for the diamond to be showcased. Are these measurements lowish?
- the big question. Am I mad adding these side stones. Will they distract from the stone? I wanted a delicate, vintage, pretty look but having seen the CAD, I’m worried the stones might ruin it.
-Do the side bits on the CAD look too long and clunky? There seems a lot of metal. Could I get a scalloped edge or millegrain? The side bits also seem to end in the middle of the diamond? Where will they attach?!
-The prong tips look clunky. I liked the swooping look of the RC ones. What should I be asking for? The upright prongs themselves are very solid and straight and look quite...boring and clunky!

Here’s my stone in its existing setting




Here’s the RC antique style I used as my inspiration ring.



Here’s the non sidestone design I like. Anyone prefer this?!



Any help or thoughts from the amazing community here would be amazing. This post was first posted in the antique forum and I’ve quickly reposted here as advised. Hope that’s ok.
Thank you!

 

[Rfisher]

I can't see your current stone/ ring very clearly, but it looks pretty!
Your two inspiration photos have been favorites of mine for awhile.
Are you overall happy with the CAD design for your ring when you look back at your 2 inspiration photos?
I don't think the diamond accents on the shoulders would distract, nor take away from a delicate vintage look.
I think you are correct to question the attachment of the shoulders.
Your overall question on whether or not it's going to look delicate vs clunky really comes down to the jeweler/bench and their skill. I don't believe it's just a measurement numbers game. I get that you are forbidden to know who the jeweler is- but with your concerns and you knowing precisely what you want- I would strongly suggest you ask to see finished examples from the jeweler in styles close to what you are trying to obtain to make sure they can accomplish it.

 

[tlfiore]

@d89s46 I like the design elements of your CAD a whole lot! I am not a CAD, or design expert (cannot wait for those folks to jump in with their always helpful notions) but FWIW, I think your designer and/or their CAD person(s) did a great job capturing elements you love from both inspiration rings.

Similar to others here on PS, I almost purchased the ring setting you show with your side stones (shoulders), the Ring Concierge Antique Solitaire. However, I just re-read your message and it sounds like you do NOT want the head of the RC ring.

Addressing your concerns about the shoulders, consider this: IMHO, one of the nicest and most unique elements about the Ring Concierge piece is the gorgeous prong orientation, NSEW, tri-prongs. That's the one component I adore about that ring, a component that I think adds to the flow and integration of the overall design, including the integration & flow of the shoulders.

See, the shoulders on your CAD may look "odd" to you because they don't integrate into the prongs the way they do on the Ring Concierge piece. I'm wondering if there is a way to make the shoulders appear more "attached" to the rest of the ring?

Also, bear in mind that milgraining WILL soften up the look of the shoulders quite a lot. The milgrain element is evident on the shoulders of the RC ring. Milgrain is (usually) hand-added after a ring is cast, or hand forged, etc. And, from what I know, the CAD must show and account for engraving and milgraining done at the end, ergot the hefty look of the shoulders...does that make sense?

And yes, I think the prongs could benefit from some refinement. But from what I'm told, the CAD prongs always show "straight-up," that is before they are shaped and filed to hold the final stone.

I think your ring is lovely. I think the designer did a great job!

I'm gonna snoop around to find examples of what I mean about "integrating the shoulders."

 

[tlfiore]

I will keep trolling but I think the solution may be adding a bottom, or lower "donut," OR an upper bar to the head, so the shoulders can anchor onto something, I think particularly with the more "peg-head" look, the shoulders look suspended.


Still a "peg-type" head but with an upper detail

Would you think about changing the upper shank portion of the design, that is the part where the head of the ring attaches to the shank, by opening up that area with a "donut?" Likewise, would you consider adding delicate "cross bars" ...not sure what to call them...to anchor the shoulders?

Doing say may make the shoulders appear more attached and less suspended.

Not sure if I'm explaining myself. I'm sure all our design and CAD experts will contribute!

 

[foxinsox]

A couple of thoughts. Could you have the head look more integrated with the shank by having it crossover instead of just sprout from a single point? Like the red lines below?

For the petal attachment, a small curved/swagged cross-bar between the side prongs would be pretty unobtrusive and give you a definite attachment and also reinforce the head. In the RC version, the shoulders attach to the prongs because of the NSEW orientation. In other petal-shoulder styles the ones I’ve seen have been 6 prong so again they anchor to the prongs. Doesn’t mean this won’t work tho! It’s a really pretty style.
Also as I said in your other thread, have you seen examples of work from this jeweller and do you know if they can execute this how you want? I think most of the bulk is due to it being CAD but you need to check examples of their actual work (preferably against the CADs to make sure it’ll look how you want)

 

[tyty333]

I prefer the setting in your last photo with the engraved beaded basket. Its your setting though so you have to figure out what you like!

With your current CADS, I think the metal that the pave sets in is too straight. It needs to be ever so slightly curved to give a more "flowy" design.
Metal in CADS often looks chunky and excessive...its the nature of CADS. In real life it will be a lot more delicate if your bench/maker/jeweler knows
what they're doing.

 

[vintageloves]

I prefer the style of the ring with sidestones rather than the plain design, but this is your ring, and you shouldn't go forward with a design you're not 100% confident in it. Prongs always seem to look thick and huge in CADS, but I do think your inspiration pic has a feminine flow to the prongs that your CAD lacks.

 

[rockysalamander]

I prefer the setting in your last photo with the engraved beaded basket. Its your setting though so you have to figure out what you like!

With your current CADS, I think the metal that the pave sets in is too straight. It needs to be ever so slightly curved to give a more "flowy" design.
Metal in CADS often looks chunky and excessive...its the nature of CADS. In real life it will be a lot more delicate if your bench/maker/jeweler knows
what they're doing.

By curved, am I right that you mean more cupped? So the bottom of the side pieces are not flat. They arch upward from the shank to the head like the below example.

 

[d89s46]

Thanks you so much everyone! I’m going to read all these through once I finish work and no doubt have loads of question! X