Calling Gypsy and other CAD experts... ERD/BE CADs

[HegemonyCricket]

I received the CADs for the SS-inspired ring with 2.61 ct center emerald cut that Mark T. is making for my mom (size 4+ with sizing beads). I've never done the CAD custom thing before... Could someone take a a look and give feedback?

Single Stone inspiration ring (thanks, Gypsy!):




CADs (will be hand engraved later):

 

[HegemonyCricket]

More CADs:

 

[Niel]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

 

[Gypsy]

I think he's trying to match the proportions of the original setting with the smaller stone. I don't think that's a good idea in this case. Tell him the proportions of the setting are too large and to scale it back a bit to let the center stone be more prominent.

The original ring is set with a much smaller center. So the side design and shank are delicate. With your larger stone matching scale for scale is creating a very large and blocky setting. I'd have him tweak that until the side design and shank are back to being delicate.

 

[Niel]

If you loose the look by reducing the size of the squares, maybe consider three squares and then two squares, instead of two than one ?

 

[Niel]

Also, the goal of the prongs in the original seems to be to square off the stone. In yours, they seem to create little points that jutt out from the stone

 

[Gypsy]

Also, the goal of the prongs in the original seems to be to square off the stone. In yours, they seem to create little points that jutt out from the stone

Definitely. I'd ask about that.

 

[Gypsy]

If you loose the look by reducing the size of the squares, maybe consider three squares and then two squares, instead of two than one ?

I'm not a fan of that idea, personally. Her mom has small fingers. So I think just shrinking the existing boxes is enough. Plus it will let the stone, which is FREAKING AMAZING, be the star.

 

[Niel]

If you loose the look by reducing the size of the squares, maybe consider three squares and then two squares, instead of two than one ?

I'm not a fan of that idea, personally. Her mom has small fingers. So I think just shrinking the existing boxes is enough. Plus it will let the stone, which is FREAKING AMAZING, be the star.

Yes I'm inclined to think you're right, I'm just thinking out loud I guess as I worry it may not have the same look when shrunken down. As in the original its done to have the boxes end right where the cut corner startawhich won't happen in this remake. It'll be a different look. But not bad though.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They need to pay y'all for design work, because that CAD isn't even close! The inspiration ring is beautiful!

 

[HegemonyCricket]

Niel and Gypsy, thanks for the feedback! Asking Mark to make the edits, and I'll find out the size of the shank, etc.

ds2006, LOL! So true! I don't know what I would do without y'all!

 

[Michael_E]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

You should keep in mind that this model has obviously been designed for casting and engraving after that. This means that everything is made maybe .20mm larger than it will end up in reality. Seeing this in those terms, the CAD model in this case is just about right, (since it'll "shrink" during finishing operations).

 

[HegemonyCricket]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

You should keep in mind that this model has obviously been designed for casting and engraving after that. This means that everything is made maybe .20mm larger than it will end up in reality. Seeing this in those terms, the CAD model in this case is just about right, (since it'll "shrink" during finishing operations).

Thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind!

 

[therainbowradish]

I can't wait to see this completed! I am kicking myself for not buying that emerald cut when I had the chance. It is going to be stunning and I am excited to hear how your mom reacts!

 

[Gypsy]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

You should keep in mind that this model has obviously been designed for casting and engraving after that. This means that everything is made maybe .20mm larger than it will end up in reality. Seeing this in those terms, the CAD model in this case is just about right, (since it'll "shrink" during finishing operations).

I obviously am not as used to working with CADs as you are Michael. But I do think it needs to be scaled back. More the proportions of the original setting and shank, but with a larger center stone. So the proportions on this ring overall should be different than the original with the sides looking smaller in comparison to the center.

 

[thecat]

I opened the thread, saw the CAD and thought it was good. Then I scrolled down and realised some of you picked up details which I didn't even noticed. That's why I should just stick to ready made ones instead of trying to custom anything. Good work editing the ring, ladies. Can't wait to see the final product!

 

[Michael_E]

So the proportions on this ring overall should be different than the original with the sides looking smaller in comparison to the center.

Maybe. That's kind of an aesthetic call that is sometimes hard to make when just looking at computer generated images. In addition to most CAD models being made a little heavy to allow for finishing after casting, there is the problem of actually telling the scales of what you're seeing, especially in rendered images. This happens because the placement of the "camera" in a rendering, unlike a real camera, can be much too close. This can end up giving the wrong sense of scale to the piece and make it look odd when in fact it would look just fine IRL. Just something to keep in mind when going over images generated by a computer and comparing them images of real pieces.

 

[Gypsy]

So the proportions on this ring overall should be different than the original with the sides looking smaller in comparison to the center.

Maybe. That's kind of an aesthetic call that is sometimes hard to make when just looking at computer generated images. In addition to most CAD models being made a little heavy to allow for finishing after casting, there is the problem of actually telling the scales of what you're seeing, especially in rendered images. This happens because the placement of the "camera" in a rendering, unlike a real camera, can be much too close. This can end up giving the wrong sense of scale to the piece and make it look odd when in fact it would look just fine IRL. Just something to keep in mind when going over images generated by a computer and comparing them images of real pieces.

I definitely do keep that in mind. My own projects with BGD, particularly my Margarette Pendant and Aurora Band, were really good lessons of that. Brian had to talk me down from "shouldn't we go less bulky" quite a few times. I also worked for an AutoCAD company for a couple years, which was really cool when the let us 'Ops' people play with the software and showed us the CAD versus real life images. Being on here I've also learned that depending on the program the vendor uses the CADs can be more or less 'finished view' versus 'structural view' for lack of better technical terminology on my part.

Also, a lot of CAD work, IMO, is art. Which is why I wrote this PSA post: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/custom-jewelry-work-cad-and-cast-psa.175834/#post-3202426#p3202426']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/custom-jewelry-work-cad-and-cast-psa.175834/#post-3202426#p3202426[/URL]



I think it would be great if you, or another vendor used to working with CADs posted some images of 'CAD' and real life project pictures for comparison. As 'prosumers' we learn from you guys more than anything else.

'

 

[Niel]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

You should keep in mind that this model has obviously been designed for casting and engraving after that. This means that everything is made maybe .20mm larger than it will end up in reality. Seeing this in those terms, the CAD model in this case is just about right, (since it'll "shrink" during finishing operations).

Maybe I should have been more clear. What will the shank mm size be at the end of it all?

 

[HegemonyCricket]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

You should keep in mind that this model has obviously been designed for casting and engraving after that. This means that everything is made maybe .20mm larger than it will end up in reality. Seeing this in those terms, the CAD model in this case is just about right, (since it'll "shrink" during finishing operations).

Maybe I should have been more clear. What will the shank mm size be at the end of it all?

Niel, Mark said the shank would be 2.4mm. I asked about reducing it, and he said 2mm would be too thin, so he's suggesting 2.2mm as a compromise. I've asked him to send some revised CADs for our edification.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.

You should keep in mind that this model has obviously been designed for casting and engraving after that. This means that everything is made maybe .20mm larger than it will end up in reality. Seeing this in those terms, the CAD model in this case is just about right, (since it'll "shrink" during finishing operations).

I obviously am not as used to working with CADs as you are Michael. But I do think it needs to be scaled back. More the proportions of the original setting and shank, but with a larger center stone. So the proportions on this ring overall should be different than the original with the sides looking smaller in comparison to the center.

+100

Scale of setting needs to be the same as the original except larger center stone.