CAD images from DK

[ellebelle]

I just got my first CAD images from Amy at DKJ! I'm loving the design, and i think she did a great job combining the features I asked for. (Graduated halo, flower gallery, clean lines around the pave.) Still, I'd like your opinions on a few things...


From the top down view, it looks like the v prong is partly covering the top three stones of the halo. Is this normal or should those stones be moved up and out to give the prong more space? Also the inspiration pic had a "faux bezel" around the center stone. Is that shown here?

From the bottom right image, I think i want the petals of the flower to meet at the bottom closer together. Does that make sense? Right now they seem to come straight down.

From the bottom left image, does the band look too thick from this view? I want it to ha ve a delicate look. The shoulders where the cathedral sides starts looks a bit chunky to me. I asked for the setting to be low profile, would you consider this low?

Also the band is 2.1mm thick, should I ask for a thinner band? When I was windowing shopping, I was more drawn to the daintiness of 1.5 and 1.8mm bands. Would that size work in this design?

And finally is there anything you see that I should be concerned for?
Thanks in advance!

 

[rockysalamander]

Prong space - Ask them. The metal is about 20% beefier than the final and its hard to know from the angles we have.

Faux Bezel - I'd make it clear you want to see a solid rim of metal visible from the top-down view. You basically want a prong-in-bezel setting with a halo. You can use this picture to show them that you want a rim like the one in yellow visible from a straight-down view around the whole stone.

Chunky sides - You can remove some metal and leave a filagree design or even something much more open.

Filagree

You could lenghen the leaves on the lotus so they can extend like this.


On the right, ignore the left.

• I would not narrow the band, but that is personal choice.
  
• It won't allow a flush wedding band if that is a bother because the flower are pushed outward.

• The setting is very high off the finger. Was that your plan?
• I'd ask them to tilt the halo stones about 20 degree outward to provide a better side-view (see below)

I know you don't have a double halo, but I thought this example clearly shows the tilted bead-set halo if you look at the yellow gold one.

 

[tyty333]

I agree with Rockysal's comments.

I would not make the band thinner. 2mm with pave is about as thin as I would go. If it was solid metal maybe down to 1.8mm.
I would make the petals in the gallery smaller which would bring the height of the halo/stone down. My pear sets at about 6mm but it
really could come down some more. When I had it reset I didnt think to tell them to set it lower. :roll 6mm isnt really high but IMO a little
lower would be better. I agree with tucking the bottom of the petals further in towards the center so they are not sticking out as much
allowing for a wedding band to sit a tad closer.
I like what Rockysal did in the gallery area to get rid of the "heavy metal" look with the extra curly-qs.
You could do 5 petite prongs on the stone with a single prong on the tip thus eliminating the V tip. You're in a halo so you've got the tip
fairly well protected. Just an idea.


Looks like you are heading in the right direction!

Edit...oh my word that picture is huge!!!

 

[ellebelle]

Thank you for your response.
My wedding band will eventually be a curved/nesting band that sits flush with bottom curve of the halo. So the gallery won't be in the way, I think? Here's what i mean:

I like the idea of extending the curly leaf fillagree to thin out that thicker area. This image below was one of the insprirations for the gallery and it has a smaller, second curlyque. But I removed it because it seemed too high.

My intention was a very LOW profile setting. I asked for the cathedral sides to be wide and low rising. I think this needs some adjustment still. I'm thinking the gallery needs to be more short and wide?

I've seen the 20 degree tilt suggested on other forums but I'm still confused what this accomplishes. It gives you more view of the halo from the side profile, right? Does this affect the face up look of the halo?

 

[rockysalamander]

My daily ring is 2 carat OEC that is 4.9 mm tall. I would not want my setting to much higher than that. I have plenty of real estate on my larger fingers, but I can't stand high settings.

I think you need to decide what is more important...the undergallery lotus flower or the low setting. If it were me, I'd ask them to lower the pear such that the top is no more than, say 5.25 mm based on DS's experience on a more similar sized stone and finger. That will squish the gallery down. You will still have petals, but they will be less upright. Posting a few that have this idea...not exactly the same petal design. But, can you see how far into the halo the green tourmaline can be? But, I just don't know if there is enough height for both the petals and the second shank details.





The halo tilt is for a few reasons. First, if the stones are all on the top, especially in a bead set, you only see metal from the side. Second, if the table of the diamonds are all on the same plane (facing up), they all accept and return light at the same angles. If you tilt them, you get light reflections from every possible angle. But, its personal. My grandmother was a huge advocate of adding angles into setting to provide beauty and sparkle or color from every angle. I guess I've internalized her design.

Wedding band. if you want that kind of curved band, the gallery can be low and wide. But, for the band to have the same height as your picture, it will have to be super tall to make it from your finger to the halo. In your CAD, that would be a shank that is about 2 mm wide and 6 mm tall. That is a lot of metal. The ring you posted is nowhere near that high. Can you see in this picture that the halo is basically just the thickness of the shank over the finger.

 

[rockysalamander]

Correcting myself. You could make the wedding band a mirror of the ering from the gallery.

 

[ellebelle]

I'm ok with making the flower less upright and more squished down to lose some height.
With the wedding band nesting, does it have to be flush in height with the halo? Or can it curve around the halo and sit alittle lower to the finger?

Also is there a reason beyond personal preference not to go below a 2mm band? I want a dainty look and I'm not sure 2.1mm is dainty enough.

 

[ellebelle]

Also how do we feel about these prongs? Its four claws and nothing at the top but its within a faux bezel. Does this look protective enough?

 

[foxinsox]

Also is there a reason beyond personal preference not to go below a 2mm band? I want a dainty look and I'm not sure 2.1mm is dainty enough.

Yes - it’s nothing to do with personal taste and all to do with having pavé in the shank. To set diamonds into the shank, you have to make holes in the solid metal. When you make holes in something it weakens it. 2mm is about as narrow as you can usually safely go with pavé and have it be structurally sound. You might be able to get away with it if the shank was taller/deeper than it is wide so there’s more metal there but I’m not sure how that would look or feel

 

[ellebelle]

Thank you for the explanation, foxinsox. Does this still apply if the stones are set like in the last image i posted? It has channel walls around the stones and also small beads holding each stone. I'm sure if this would be considered bead or bright cut setting.
Would this kind of setting give it more strength in the smaller width? I'm not a fan of the pave styles with the holes visible from the side of the ring.

 

[rockysalamander]

Agree with @foxinsox, less than 2.0 mm is unsafe for pave. Certainly the walls of the bead set provide support and I can't say 1.9 is too thin, but why take a chance. The halo will be large and a bit more width provides better visual balance.

I always want a prong over the tip of pear and marquise. But, given the halo and faux bezel, it can be very delicate if you add more prongs. On the DBL ring which is lovely, I can still see how the pear tip can be damaged.



I think having the band under the ering would be maddening as you move your hands around. I sometimes were a ring with my wedding band that floats a bit too closely over it, and it catches and bumps and is annoying. I guess is depends on how fitted and shaped that wedding band it and if it floats in space or can "lock" into the ering.

The below ring floats, but the gallery is a solid vertical wall and it likely does not move much. Maybe show you wedding band design to DK and ask him to show something similar with the revised cad with more squatty petals.

 

[foxinsox]

Thank you for the explanation, foxinsox. Does this still apply if the stones are set like in the last image i posted? It has channel walls around the stones and also small beads holding each stone. I'm sure if this would be considered bead or bright cut setting.
Would this kind of setting give it more strength in the smaller width? I'm not a fan of the pave styles with the holes visible from the side of the ring.

Well I wondered that too actually - maybe check with David Klass? He should be able to tell you how thin he’s comfortable making the shank specifically with your combination of stone size and halo. And also whether he could do something to make it narrow enough but beef it up in other ways to retain the structural integrity for you?

 

[Matthews1127]

Is this pave on the ER going to be an eternity band, or 1/2-3/4 eternity? If the pave will not reach all the way around the shank, you can taper the band for more delicate, and finer feel. The pave requires a strong infrastructure, so I’d also not go below 2mm, where pave will be placed. If you have any open metal, start the taper after the last pave, and taper to 1.8mm, gradually, for that more refined, and feminine feel. Once the pave is placed, you won’t notice any metal, and it won’t appear “chunky”. The diamonds take up a large portion of that space. The “extra metal” is for reinforced protection to hold the stones.
As for your lotus petals, I believe they should be more curved around, and lower; right now, they appear far too upright & high. Once those petals are spread out & rounded, the halo will sit lower to your finger.
I love the fine bezel surrounding the pear, within the halo. I also agree with @rockysalamander, you need a prong at the corner of the pear. I don’t think it’s necessary to have a v prong there, as you have the fine bezel around the diamond. A delicate, but sturdy claw prong should do the trick for extra protection of that corner to prevent exposure or damage.
+1 on 20 degree angle on the halo; the tilt will be visible from the side, but not the top. This allows light to bounce off of those diamonds, and direct it away from the center just enough so the sparkle is dispersed evenly; you don’t want a cluster of light all in one place, nor do you want interference with the center stone from the play of light from the halo. 15-20 degrees is a minimal tilt, but it’s enough to make a maximum difference, and disperse light more effectively.
I love the filagree design, with the lotus petals. In reference to the wedding band, it should sit at the same height as your ER, since it’s designed to cradle around it. If it’s lower, you run the risk of diamond against metal rubbing, and potential damage to the underside of the halo.
Incorporating the same design into your WR will not only be aesthetically appealing, but it will ensure the two bands sit flush, and correctly against each other for the desired look & feel you are trying to achieve, without risk of damage to either of them.

 

[ellebelle]

Alright, i sent off an email to Amy including most of the things we discussed. Adding the faux bezel around the center stone, either a single prong at the tip or moving the diamonds around the v-prong. And most of all, cutting down on height by making the gallery shorter and wider. I'll also ask for a mockup of a wedding band to see how that fits in.

 

[rockysalamander]

Alright, i sent off an email to Amy including most of the things we discussed. Adding the faux bezel around the center stone, either a single prong at the tip or moving the diamonds around the v-prong. And most of all, cutting down on height by making the gallery shorter and wider. I'll also ask for a mockup of a wedding band to see how that fits in.

Great! They are at JCK, so it might be a few days. Finger's crossed we are moving toward your vision.

 

[ellebelle]

Great! They are at JCK, so it might be a few days. Finger's crossed we are moving toward your vision.

I've actually been surprised how many emails I've gotten from her since they left last week. She sent my CADs Friday morning while in Vegas! I'm sure they will have alot to catch up on next week.
Anyway I hope this one comes back with more answers, this hold process is getting overwhelming. We were look window shopping in the Jewelry District in DTLA and I was tempted to just pick a setting from the showroom. But I'm too picky...

 

[ellebelle]

Alright! Got a new CAD image tonight!

The height was cut down by a full mm and the gallery is much more short and squat as discussed. I think it could still come down a bit more. And still a little chunky but I think this can be addressed. I didn't ask her yet to change the v-prong to a single but I told her I was concerned about it possibly covering the halo stones. This CAD render is slightly different and the stones look slightly move spaced out than before.
I asked for a view from below looking up for a better view of the flower details. From my understanding, the flower is actually two halves with a small space between? The "scrolls" spilt into two band and then each band meets up with three petals. Is that right?

I asked her to add a mock wedding band and sent a pic of curved band but I think there was a confusion because I intended it curve along the bottom half of the ring. Oh well, I really just wanted to see the height at which the band would sit in relation to the halo. And someday I might add a third band around the upper half.

Ok, so here's some adjustments I'm considering. Please let me know what you think and any other details I've overlooked.....


Top down view:
I moved the stone up in relation to the band. The red lines are the original centering. I didn't like how the band wasn't lined up with the halo stones. So now the green line shows the band meeting the halo right through the 4th stone from the bottom. Also when the wedding band is on the bottom half, this will decrease the amount the band has to curve around it. I'm still not sure if I'm getting that faux bezel look. Should I be able to see it in the CAD? I'm also not sure if the pave stones are bead/bright set?
Bottom up view:
I'd like all the petals to be pointy like the center petal.
Should I eliminated or reduce the gap between the halves of the flower? This would pinch in the petals from the side profile better.
Side profile:
Good news is the height came down and the flower is less upright/more squished down. But I'd like to make this area more open. In my original request to Amy I only focused on the height issue, I think now we can address the bulkiness. I drafted up two options we previously discussed. I like the one of the left better but maybe because I drew it better. Basically I want to extend the scroll filagree down the shaft.
Other side profile:
I like the 20 degree tilt on the halo. I highlighted in the blue oval where the halo meets the band and I think this needs to be smoothed out. Now that the halo is tilted out, I think the wedding band should tilt to match. Also this view shows a gap between the the halo and band (red oval seen here and the first side profile). I think the band needs to meet up with the bottom of the halo and then tilt out the same degree. Would this be enough to prevent the stones in the band from rubbing the bottom of the halo? Also is it normal to design the wedding band now or should I just wait until its needed?

 

[sledge]

Your wedding band looks funny on the top view. Maybe it's just an optical illusion?



I'm doing a custom setting with DK as well, and Amy just got back a revision to my CAD's that took a couple of times explaining to get right. See the yellow highlight below. Your wedding band might look pretty nice if you twist and rotate in a similar manner.

 

[ellebelle]

Your wedding band looks funny on the top view. Maybe it's just an optical illusion?

Not an optical illusion, just a bad copy/paste on my part.
I was trying to adjust the positioning of the stone/halo up in relation to the band of the e-ring. When i send it into Amy, I'll just erase out the wedding band entirely because it should be on the bottom of the ering anyway.

Yes, I've browsed through your thread and your ring is looking good. Ideally I want the band to tilt out the same degree as the halo. But I'm not sure yet if the band will be just a curved shape or petals.

 

[ellebelle]

Ok I "fixed" it with a very rough drawing in MS paint. lol basically the horizontal red line used to be the center of the ring where the halo met with the band. But I didn't like how the halo stone didn't line up with the stones in the band. So I shifted the center up. Now the new green line bisects the halo stones and the band. I think this looks more balanced because the bottom half of the halo is heavier. Also this is closer to how I envisioned the wedding band. In real life it would be like this. 7 or 9 stones, whatever is needed to cover.

 

[ellebelle]

Also, @rockysalamander, I'm really hoping you can please help me interpret the setting style of the pave?
I really want to get the look of the Diamonds by Lauren ring. So far I'm still not seeing the faux bezel or the bead setting around the halo and shank stones. Looking at @sledge's CAD, my setting looks more like his pave in the yellow highlight than the channel set section.

 

[rockysalamander]

I'll spend some time looking at it tomarrow.

 

[ellebelle]

Thank you!

 

[rockysalamander]

Bead setting? I looked here on PS and DK's bead and bright does look in CAD as yours. See one example here. Since the bead is formed by being formed from the metal of the ring (not soldered), they don't show in the CAD. If they say they will be bead-set like the DBL, I think you are good.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engagement-ring-cads.226889/

Faux bezel. I see it in the CAD. Once you lose about 20% in the finishing, it will be more distinct. But, you should also verbally get confirmation that the CAD will result in a finished design like the DBL in terms of width. It looks the same width of exposed metal as the outer metal rim for the bead-set stones.


Halo stones. Did you ask them to remove two of the stones? Counting, there are two less stones. 1st cad on left, newest on right. I think the first CAD was your vision for the halo from the top with the bottom stone being quite distinct. Did you change your mind on that?



Swoops in the shank. In theory, your revision may work. But, it will come down to if there is enough metal to hold the bead-set shank stones with that area cut out with different metal. So, it does look nice, but you'll have to check with them on the structural realities. In theory, the entire side wall of the bead could be open/filagree and not solid metal as the bead is pulled up from the bottom of the channel that makes the shank. But, the dual metal means this is formed in two pieces and then joined, so that makes a filigree side wall much harder to envision and execute (and my be near impossible).

Re-align the bezel/shank N/S. I can see what you are aiming at, but the bottom of this halo is already heavier if you are keeping the larger melee stones (graduated) at the bottom of the pear. If you add those heavy stones and shifting the halo, it might feel too heavy. I'd like to see them place the w-band on the correct side and they for you to evaluate that.

Cleaning access. Read what i posted over for @sledge. The same is at hand here, but made more complex due to the swoopy design in the gallery. So, you need to work with them to make the underside as open and cleanable as possible.

Did I miss something?

p.s. @sledge, I 100% agree with the wedding band suggestion being a mirror of the swoop on the opposite side. That is what is in the inspo ring, but I didn't raise that until the ering was sorted.

 

[sledge]

Not an optical illusion, just a bad copy/paste on my part.
I was trying to adjust the positioning of the stone/halo up in relation to the band of the e-ring. When i send it into Amy, I'll just erase out the wedding band entirely because it should be on the bottom of the ering anyway.

Yes, I've browsed through your thread and your ring is looking good. Ideally I want the band to tilt out the same degree as the halo. But I'm not sure yet if the band will be just a curved shape or petals.

Ahhh, I'm sorry. I wasn't picking on your cut & paste job. I can actually draw pretty okay on paper but doing it on the computer is tough unless if you have a Surface Book Pro or similar with a pen. Or at least it is for me. So definitely didn't mean anything by it. Just thought it came back from DK that way.

And @rockysalamander, you really are a rockstar at this stuff. You've helped myself and so many others with picking diamonds, coordinating with custom jewelry designs, etc. Thank you for the time and effort you put into helping this community, you truly make a difference.

 

[ellebelle]

Bead setting? I looked here on PS and DK's bead and bright does look in CAD as yours. See one example here. Since the bead is formed by being formed from the metal of the ring (not soldered), they don't show in the CAD. If they say they will be bead-set like the DBL, I think you are good.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/engagement-ring-cads.226889/

Faux bezel. I see it in the CAD. Once you lose about 20% in the finishing, it will be more distinct. But, you should also verbally get confirmation that the CAD will result in a finished design like the DBL in terms of width. It looks the same width of exposed metal as the outer metal rim for the bead-set stones.

Thank you!
I was seriously stressing over this and feeling like request for this look was unheard. Relieved to know thats just how it looks in CAD.

Halo stones. Did you ask them to remove two of the stones? Counting, there are two less stones. 1st cad on left, newest on right. I think the first CAD was your vision for the halo from the top with the bottom stone being quite distinct. Did you change your mind on that?

You know, I noticed the stones looked more spaced out, but I'm a dunce and didn't actually count them up.
I brought up Amy that in the first CAD, the top three stones were too covered up by the v-prong and that maybe they could be positioned higher to give more space to the prong. But I guess in doing so, I lost two stones along the way.
Your right, the first halo was much more dramatic with the graduated stones. I'll ask her to go back to this version and do a single prong at the top.

Swoops in the shank. In theory, your revision may work. But, it will come down to if there is enough metal to hold the bead-set shank stones with that area cut out with different metal. So, it does look nice, but you'll have to check with them on the structural realities. In theory, the entire side wall of the bead could be open/filagree and not solid metal as the bead is pulled up from the bottom of the channel that makes the shank. But, the dual metal means this is formed in two pieces and then joined, so that makes a filigree side wall much harder to envision and execute (and my be near impossible).

Fingers crossed I haven't designed something structurally impossible. What do you think if the filagree was changed to rose gold and only the flower was white gold? (Also just noticed the metals listed as gold and not rose. I'll have to address that too.)

Re-align the bezel/shank N/S. I can see what you are aiming at, but the bottom of this halo is already heavier if you are keeping the larger melee stones (graduated) at the bottom of the pear. If you add those heavy stones and shifting the halo, it might feel too heavy. I'd like to see them place the w-band on the correct side and they for you to evaluate that.

Maybe this will self-correct when the halo and wedding band are fixed. I can be very type A so seeing the stones not lineing up together was bugging me.

Cleaning access. Read what i posted over for @sledge. The same is at hand here, but made more complex due to the swoopy design in the gallery. So, you need to work with them to make the underside as open and cleanable as possible.

So I get why the larger holes are preferable to the smaller ones for cleaning, but why are they necessary in the first place? No holes= no build up gunk to clean out?

Ahhh, I'm sorry. I wasn't picking on your cut & paste job. I can actually draw pretty okay on paper but doing it on the computer is tough unless if you have a Surface Book Pro or similar with a pen. Or at least it is for me. So definitely didn't mean anything by it. Just thought it came back from DK that way.

I'm working on a small laptop with a track pad so a surface book with stylus would be amazing right now!

And @rockysalamander, you really are a rockstar at this stuff. You've helped myself and so many others with picking diamonds, coordinating with custom jewelry designs, etc. Thank you for the time and effort you put into helping this community, you truly make a difference.

Ditto!

Thanks again @rockysalamander, I'm feeling alot better about the setting and how to adjust it now.

 

[ellebelle]

Hi everyone! I I got my latest CAD today, and there's been some big changes! Since the last time I post on this thread, we bought a new stone! The original one just wasn't right. So we kept hunting for a new one and this one is perfect! And almost twice as big (1ct to 1.86ct)! I'm surprised at myself because I never thought I'd be one upgrade my stone, and here I am "upgrading" before the ring is even done!
So because of the larger stone, we had to remove the shank pave in order to stay in budget. That's fine by me because it puts more focus on the stone and halo. Amy mentioned we could add the pave at later time if wanted.
Well, here's the CAD...


Just as a side note, I know the wedding band still needs some adjusting but for the sake of time, its going to have to wait. I didn't know until a few days ago that my boyfriend was planning to propose this FRIDAY! But no way would the ring be ready so we agreed to hold off until it was done. I know he's anxious so I want to get this finalized soon.
So there's a few things I see that need addressing. The biggest is the spacing of the halo. Somehow every time we adjust the halo, I lose stones. Started with 20 around the smaller stone and now down to 16 around the new stone. As a result, there's now too much space between the stones. My original CAD had the stones right up next to each other touching. So I'm asking her to go back to 20. The original inspiration ring (Kristin Coffin) had 20 stones around a 9x6mm stone
Next issue is the flower petals and filagree. I asked her to make the petals pointier at the tips and extend the filagree. But again, some of the design elements I originally liked have gotten designed out. The flower part is too V-shaped and filagree is too straight. I'm currently working on some images to show what i mean but I just wanted to throw this out to you all.
Like I said, its getting down to the wire so any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

 

[ellebelle]

Here's what I've changed so far...

 

[ellebelle]

*crickets*
Anybody out there?

 

[rockysalamander]

Here's what I've changed so far...

I think you highlighted the main differences. I would still hope for some holes underneath to clean out the pave, but that will depend on if there is enough metal that would remain. If you have bead-set, then the holes can be bigger. The dirt and grime will enter from all sides (think about washing your hands, a sweaty hot day). The holes help you clean the bottom of the diamond. But, DK will have to assess the impact on the durability of the metal. It looks like the two parts of the lower gallery have an opening for cleaning, so that is good.

For the lower rose gold curls, I wonder if you might want to make those curls terminate in contact with the rose gold, especially the one closest to the gallery. I'm at work and can draw a picture at home, but think of it ending in a little circle vs. open. That might help with the right snagging on stuff. Might not.