CADs for sapphire ring

[LD]

Hello everybody

I'm working with a new CAD person (not sure what the correct terminology is) and I'm a little worried and need your input. What I'm trying to achieve is finger coverage, a nice slim shank, no airlines and something aesthetically pleasing. So let's start off with the first round of designs:

I don't like this one because I wanted a more "swoopy" setting and also I think the trilliants are too pointy at the sides when the rest of the ring is nice and curveacious! Initially I liked it but the more I looked at it, the less I liked the trilliants.



So then we moved on to changing out the trilliants and putting in tapered baguettes (although these don't look tapered). I really hate this look! It doesn't flow at all.



So we're now on very draft CADs for a 5 stone oval ring. Several things I don't like (a) the airline between the sapphire and sides and (b) where the swoopy basket attaches to the shank (c) the overall width of the shank (when viewed from the top next to the end ovals which looks too chunky. The CAD lady is going to refine things but what have I missed? Anything obvious? Feel free to chime in with any changes etc.

 

[chrono]

Is it me or does the last CAD have smaller ovals (relative to the sapphire)? The graduated size seems more pleasing and flowing to the eye. I don't think you'll see much chunkiness in the last design because you can barely see the shank.

 

[LD]

Is it me or does the last CAD have smaller ovals (relative to the sapphire)? The graduated size seems more pleasing and flowing to the eye. I don't think you'll see much chunkiness in the last design because you can barely see the shank.

Sorry yes you're right Chrono. I suggested having shared prongs to reduce the airlines but the CAD lady said that it would be good to also reduce the ovals in size. So the sapphire is a little over 7.5 x 5.8, then the next ovals are 6 x 4 and then I think go down to 5 x 3. I've asked for clarification on that though.

 

[motownmama]

That 5 stone flows beautifully. I know you’re making some tweaks; I you’re on the perfect path.

 

[Polyhex]

If you want to eliminate airlines, would you consider a solid top that the stones are set into with tiny beads like in Cecile Raley's designs? That would allow you to position the pieces as close as possible together.

 

[winnietucker]

I love the profile view of #1 & the face down (up?) view of #3 the best.

 

[pokerface]

I think #1 works with graduated ovals & trilliants, or perhaps even rounds & trilliants.

 

[LD]

If you want to eliminate airlines, would you consider a solid top that the stones are set into with tiny beads like in Cecile Raley's designs? That would allow you to position the pieces as close as possible together.

Do you have a photo of what you mean? I can’t visualise it. X

 

[LD]

I love the profile view of #1 & the face down (up?) view of #3 the best.

I think #1 works with graduated ovals & trilliants, or perhaps even rounds & trilliants.

Sorry! The trilliant design has been scraped!

 

[LD]

If you want to eliminate airlines, would you consider a solid top that the stones are set into with tiny beads like in Cecile Raley's designs? That would allow you to position the pieces as close as possible together.

Do you mean something like this where millgrained metal is used and creates almost a bezel effect?

 

[Polyhex]

Do you mean something like this where millgrained metal is used and creates almost a bezel effect?

Yes but it can be done with and without milgrain or with and without semi-bezel designs. The core design element is that it's a plaque with holes shaped to the stone dimensions and because they are positioned without large prongs (usually tiny prongs, beads, or edges) they can be placed with the stones touching each other (or not) without any gaps. Here are two different looking designs that are fundamentally plaques with holes for the stones.

Plaque without any milgrain or gap between the stones:



Plaque where stones are set touching each other, some milgrain, bead set and prong set.

 

[chrono]

@Polyhex Any pictures of the side view? I'm thinking this is only possible if the stones are set into the metal and the prongs are merely to hold them down that metal cradle. Might not be possible if purely prong set (open on all sides). The side view will be quite a departure from the current very open CAD.

 

[Polyhex]

@Polyhex Any pictures of the side view? I'm thinking this is only possible if the stones are set into the metal and the prongs are merely to hold them down that metal cradle. Might not be possible if purely prong set (open on all sides). The side view will be quite a departure from the current very open CAD.

Yup! The prongs, beads, or edging is holding the stones down onto the plaque and hence can be very tiny and the stones can touch. You can put whatever you want under the plaque and in the side view but it's not going to look the same or be as open from the side because at a minimum there is a solid line of metal around the stone visible from the side. It's a tradeoff.

 

[LD]

I appreciate the designs @Polyhex but it's not for this ring. I do love your 5 stone ring though - are they rounds? Very pretty.

 

[LD]

I think this is going to be the final version. I'm not into prongs but actually because the sapphire is pointy I think this may work - thoughts? I'd like the claws to be pointy BUT can you do this with a shared prong? I'm thinking no so I may have to settle for the rounded claws.

 

[LilAlex]

Just because I have a solitaire ring like this: prongs at 12:00 and 6:00 on an oval disrupt the outline of the stone and can give it an odd almost-marquise look. Mine is a fatter oval so it is more obvious -- probably works better with these narrower ovals.

 

[LD]

Just because I have a solitaire ring like this: prongs at 12:00 and 6:00 on an oval disrupt the outline of the stone and can give it an odd almost-marquise look. Mine is a fatter oval so it is more obvious -- probably works better with these narrower ovals.

That’s a really good point @LilAlex. The sapphire is a barion cut so it does have points at 12, 6 etc so it may look ok but I totally get what you’re saying. Have you ever shared a picture of your oval? I’d love to see it please.

 

[LilAlex]

That’s a really good point @LilAlex. The sapphire is a barion cut so it does have points at 12, 6 etc so it may look ok but I totally get what you’re saying. Have you ever shared a picture of your oval? I’d love to see it please.

This picture is from another thread and doesn't show the 12:00/6:00 super-well. It bugs me a little but not enough to alter the old (? antique) mounting. (Photo cred: Inken at Enhoerning)

 

[LD]

This picture is from another thread and doesn't show the 12:00/6:00 super-well. It bugs me a little but not enough to alter the old (? antique) mounting. (Photo cred: Inken at Enhoerning)

Thank you for that. I see what you mean but I think with your setting because the claws aren’t the sant at 12 and 6 as elsewhere it sort of forces the eye to a marquise doesn’t it. I bet if those claws were the same as the others it would look more oval.

The more I think about mine looking more marquise I think I can live with that because the sapphire is a pointy oval. Thank you for your help it’s really had me thinking about what I want.

 

[2Neesers]

Your final design is gorgeous! I can’t wait to see the finished ring!!