Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

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

HegemonyCricket

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
282
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):

imageuploadedbytapatalk1453418457.jpg

imageuploadedbytapatalk1453418470.jpg

imageuploadedbytapatalk1453418492.jpg

imageuploadedbytapatalk1453418501.jpg
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
18,853
What size is the shank? The shank, and thus the squares, seem a tad large.
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
18,853
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
18,853
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
Niel|1453427663|3979446 said:
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
Niel|1453427574|3979443 said:
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
18,853
Gypsy|1453430025|3979464 said:
Niel|1453427574|3979443 said:
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,631
They need to pay y'all for design work, because that CAD isn't even close! The inspiration ring is beautiful!
 

HegemonyCricket

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
282
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

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
1,290
Niel|1453422120|3979404 said:
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

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
282
Michael_E|1453433162|3979498 said:
Niel|1453422120|3979404 said:
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

Shiny_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
409
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
Michael_E|1453433162|3979498 said:
Niel|1453422120|3979404 said:
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

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
1,483
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

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
1,290
Gypsy|1453442012|3979560 said:
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,198
Michael_E|1453446775|3979581 said:
Gypsy|1453442012|3979560 said:
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]

8)

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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
18,853
Michael_E|1453433162|3979498 said:
Niel|1453422120|3979404 said:
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

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
282
Niel|1453466818|3979609 said:
Michael_E|1453433162|3979498 said:
Niel|1453422120|3979404 said:
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

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
55,631
Gypsy|1453442012|3979560 said:
Michael_E|1453433162|3979498 said:
Niel|1453422120|3979404 said:
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.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top