CADs from DK are in for my e-ring re-set

[dtnyc]

After what feels like ages I finally sent my ring off to DK to have the setting re-done. I have never loved my setting, but after 12 years of marriage it's finally happening. My husband had my original ring made by a jeweler who made pieces for his grandmother, using a stone from one of her necklace's as the center stone and he had 6 side stones (3 on each side) added, so I am working with what I got and using all of the original stones. I sent David another ring I had with 9 1.8 mm diamonds in it- hopeful that they somehow could be incorporated into the gallery, but he thinks that they are too large and the proportions aren't right with the rest of the ring, so no additional bling- oh well!
Here are some pics of my original ring- bulky setting, globby prongs and too high-


Here is the latest CAD from DK:


I want the center stone to prong set (small claw prongs) w/i a hexagon bezel- but I can't tell if that is how it is going to be?
I am happy w/ the side stone layout- I asked for them to be bead set, and he said he is going to hand engrave the milgraining.

I am going to see if he can make the shank a little thinner than 2.4 mm-

Let me know what you think!

 

[tyty333]

I love the hexagon look with small claw prongs. How do you feel about the height? 6.4? A lot lower than your old setting but might be able to come
down a tad more.

I'm not loving the hoops in the gallery...do you like them or are you up for something else?

 

[sledge]

Do you like the side profile? To me, it transitions quickly sort of like a T. I might want to see that a little more smoothed out, but if you do that it may take away from the hex shape on top you are going for.

Also, because the top is so big I am not sure a 2mm band works.

All from a guy's perspective. I'm sure some of the ladies will chirp in soon and tell me I'm wrong, lol.

 

[unsettled]

Are you doing a new band? Or will you wear the band pictured in your avatar? Is it important for a band to sit flush?

 

[tyty333]

For some reason I want to smooth this curve down out a little more

These are much smaller stone but I like the smoother transition from the center stone to the side stones. I'm talking the curves of the side.

 

[sledge]

For some reason I want to smooth this curve down out a little more

These are much smaller stone but I like the smoother transition from the center stone to the side stones. I'm talking the curves of the side.

Exactly my thoughts too @tyty333. I should have done her a drawing earlier. I think it's even more noticeable on the side view. That is what I meant about the hard looking T shape.

 

[dtnyc]

Are you doing a new band? Or will you wear the band pictured in your avatar? Is it important for a band to sit flush?

No new band and current band is nowhere near flush, so it's fine.

 

[unsettled]

No new band and current band is nowhere near flush, so it's fine.

Is your band shared prong? That’s what I have for my wedding band. And it’s rubbing on the basket of my setting. And it’s tapered and similar in height to your CAD. I sort of expected it. But just throwing it out there if you haven’t thought about it.

 

[dtnyc]

View attachment 633519

Is your band shared prong? That’s what I have for my wedding band. And it’s rubbing on the basket of my setting. And it’s tapered and similar in height to your CAD. I sort of expected it. But just throwing it out there if you haven’t thought about it.[/QUOTE
Band is not shared prong. It’s an estate piece and I think it is U prong, but the truth is I wear a bunch of different bands and I can always pop a thinner band in between if there is an issue.

 

[dtnyc]

For some reason I want to smooth this curve down out a little more

These are much smaller stone but I like the smoother transition from the center stone to the side stones. I'm talking the curves of the side.

I will ask DK about this- due to the size of the side stones I think it might be difficult? Are you thinking more space between the pair of stones and the single stone in the trio?

 

[dtnyc]

Exactly my thoughts too @tyty333. I should have done her a drawing earlier. I think it's even more noticeable on the side view. That is what I meant about the hard looking T shape.

In searching for inspiration for my setting I considered a more botanical inspired setting like that above but then I thought it would be too much/wouldn’t jive with the hexagon bezel.

 

[rockysalamander]

In searching for inspiration for my setting I considered a more botanical inspired setting like that above but then I thought it would be too much/wouldn’t jive with the hexagon bezel.

I actually really like that insps. But, I think to work with the hexagon bezel, I'd make the shapes around the side diamonds more linear and straight so each diamond had a half-hexagon around it. But, I really like the shaping and idea of those side stones having clear boundaries and it does not bulk up the setting width.

 

[tyty333]

Any chance of you using the 6 big stones in a wedding band and using the 1.8mm stones in the sides of the ring?

This is pretty but may be a different style than you're after.

 

[mrsgreeneyes]

After what feels like ages I finally sent my ring off to DK to have the setting re-done. I have never loved my setting, but after 12 years of marriage it's finally happening. My husband had my original ring made by a jeweler who made pieces for his grandmother, using a stone from one of her necklace's as the center stone and he had 6 side stones (3 on each side) added, so I am working with what I got and using all of the original stones. I sent David another ring I had with 9 1.8 mm diamonds in it- hopeful that they somehow could be incorporated into the gallery, but he thinks that they are too large and the proportions aren't right with the rest of the ring, so no additional bling- oh well!
Here are some pics of my original ring- bulky setting, globby prongs and too high-


Here is the latest CAD from DK:


I want the center stone to prong set (small claw prongs) w/i a hexagon bezel- but I can't tell if that is how it is going to be?
I am happy w/ the side stone layout- I asked for them to be bead set, and he said he is going to hand engrave the milgraining.

I am going to see if he can make the shank a little thinner than 2.4 mm-

Let me know what you think!

I may be the only person to say this, but I like it! Do YOU like it? I can definitely see where the bezel is a hexagon, and David should be able to taper the band width down for you - 2mm is as thin as I would go. How did you feel when you first saw the CAD?

 

[sledge]

Any chance of you using the 6 big stones in a wedding band and using the 1.8mm stones in the sides of the ring?

This is pretty but may be a different style than you're after.

I also like this style. Changes it up from putting the side stones in the same orientation (2 on top, 1 on bottom) as the original 12yr old setting and also makes it a little thinner. To do this, you have to rotate the hexagon though. I tried to highlight the original in green and the proposed in purple.

While I think this could look great, it is very different than the original CAD which I have to believe was based on an inspiration. Essentially, I am a little concerned this is taking the ring into a different direction @dtnyc may not want. I am posting for reference, but please note I am not trying to push this opinion on you.



Personally I like the flat edges of the hexagon being on top & bottom better than the points. That said, if @dtnyc likes this type of modified setting, she could use an octagon to keep the flat pieces on top and also the sides. IMO you need the smaller pieces to put the stones in a line vs spreading them out like a triangle in the 2 on top, 1 on bottom setup. See orange lines below.

 

[SimoneDi]

In searching for inspiration for my setting I considered a more botanical inspired setting like that above but then I thought it would be too much/wouldn’t jive with the hexagon bezel.

I love this inspiration! It is stunning!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I love this inspiration! It is stunning!

I love the inspiration ring as well - reminds me of Queen Elizabeth's setting although her center is a 3 ct. stone. I think it is really pretty without the bezel!

 

[Maggiemeans]

I like this top view alot.. I don't like the sides "smoothed out" more.. as then it just looks like an oval.. not as refined.
My two cents only.. i am not feeling those U's in the gallery..

 

[metall]

I think that this setting is a pretty mesh between your first e-ring and the inspo photo. I am a big fan of a hexagon/octogon bezels I think that they add a little something to a ring. I love the current design, but I think that it could us a teeny bit more flow

I'm wondering if you would want to use your smaller stones in place of the 6 big ones from your original e-ring. I think that the two 3.5 stones and a 3.0 are throwing the proportions off for me...whereas if you were to use 3 1.8's on each side or maybe even 6...it might taper more nicely.

For example your center stone is 8.3 - the two closes to your center are 3.5 (7.0) then it tapers straight away into the 3.0 of your smaller stone so it's: 8.3 to 7.0 to 3.0 to a 2..0 shank which I think is what's causing the T shape....say you used the 1.8 stones it would be more: 8.3 to 3.6 to 1.8 to a 2.0 shank...the downsizing might make it more triangular. Or if you went with three rows: 8.3 to 5.4 to 3.6 to 1.8 (this option may be WAYY to much and a bit wall to wall bling...but if that's the look you're going for...) Or you might be able to go: 8.3 to 3.6 to 3.0 (using the original smaller stone from your e-ring)...there are a few possibilities to play with here.

With those left over stones I'd put the stones from your original ring (pick up a 4.0 stone) and make it into a graduated 7 or 5 stone

 

[dtnyc]

Thank you everyone for the feedback and ideas!

I love the hexagon look with small claw prongs. How do you feel about the height? 6.4? A lot lower than your old setting but might be able to come
down a tad more.

I'm not loving the hoops in the gallery...do you like them or are you up for something else?

I definitely want it lower than the old ring, I will ask him how high the old one was set, I want low to very low, but I don't want it super duper low, as I need the height/projection because of the side stones. I sent him a few ideas for galleries you can see he went w/ the last one - I think maybe I need to go more simple- like the 2nd one in this group- I think that the issue is w/ the spread of the side stones you lose some gallery/basket real estate.

I may be the only person to say this, but I like it! Do YOU like it? I can definitely see where the bezel is a hexagon, and David should be able to taper the band width down for you - 2mm is as thin as I would go. How did you feel when you first saw the CAD?

So this is the 3rd version I have gotten from him- I like this one the best for sure- the profile and overall side stone layout & milgrain details are good, and I guess that the pronged bezel around the main stone is as well- the detail around the main stone is what I am having the hardest time visualizing to be honest.

I love the inspiration ring as well - reminds me of Queen Elizabeth's setting although her center is a 3 ct. stone. I think it is really pretty without the bezel!

I totally have the Queen's ring in my inspo folder! She has 5 stones on each shoulder and yes, a 3 ct stone, this is 2.08 not quite there!

 

[foxinsox]

I think the CAD is perfect as it is currently - the hexagonal bezel is lovely and I think a clear feature. The three stones on each shoulder look proportional to the centre stone. And I even like the under gallery hoops - they look like those lovely struts that you see in Edwardian/Art Deco rings.

 

[dtnyc]

Wanted to share an update! A plastic model from this CAD is on its way to me- the whole thing has been lowered to 6mm from 6.4mm - original ring was 7, but OG ring was also "stair steppy" on the sides so I think even though 1mm isn't a tremendous amount it is going to feel a lot lower.
He sent me a CAD w/ a different basket design, but I prefer the arches- I had him add the tiny circles under the shoulders as well oh and the ring size changed from 5.75 to 6.
I am going to keep the shank at 2.4 vs. trying to get it down to 2 mm.

 

[sledge]

I don't know the technical name, but in those little circles you added to the arches in the basket design -- have you thought about adding a small stone in them? I've seen that done on some other designs and really like it. Not sure if that is your thing or not.

Otherwise, it's looking good. Be sure to post pics once you get the plastic model.

 

[dtnyc]

Plastic model arrived today!

Pardon my growing out gel mani!

I called DKJ to confirm that I had received it and go over a few things. I spoke with Amy and had a great convo. She confirmed that the prongs would be much more delicate on the actual ring, that David would hand engrave the milgrain, side stones will be almost burnish set, etc.
I asked about the possibility of putting 4 teeny stones in the small circles under the shoulders and she said oh we can do that! So that’s exciting!
Also she is going to adjust the shank of the ring so it has a soft knife edge and then there will be a milgrain line applied during the finishing process- as in these pics. Also she will take pics of it with a high polish and then I will decide if I want to go with the satin finish. Fun Friday!

 

[dtnyc]

And it's done! and I love it- Here is my SMTR thread- https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/obsessed-w-my-e-ring-reset-by-david-klass.242610/