David Klass CAD design help pls!

[TheElms]

I'm embarking on a variety of projects with DK and first up is a asscher grey spinel and purple sapphire ring! The picture of the gems are below and then the CADs from David. I'm thinking the overall design is looking a little chunky and possibly that three rows of sapphires might be a bit much. I'm definitely looking for suggestions so please suggest away!

 

[voce]

Do you not like the finger coverage? I like having three rows of sapphires, but I'd take two out from the rows closest to the spinel. So it would then look like 1-2-2-Spinel-2-2-1 instead of 1-2-3-Spinel-3-2-1, which kind of makes your Asscher look like a dwarf because 3 sapphires for the first rows looks rather wide.

 

[Acinom]

What @voce said. Three sapphires is rather wide right next to your beautiful spinel. The proportions as suggested by her will flow nicer and more in proportion

 

[elle_71125]

I agree with the previous posters. I think the row of three looks too big next to your gorgeous spinel. I’d either do the 1,2,2 or I’d take out the 3rd (largest row) and
just do 1,2 spinel 2,1.

I love the color combo btw. I can’t wait to see how that looks in the end.

 

[BlingDreams]

Agree with the comments, and LOVE the color combo. Are you sure you don’t want a design that surrounds the whole stone with those luscious purple sapphires??



Maybe like this, but with the whole center being the asscher?

Sigh... so many gorgeous options...

 

[rockysalamander]

I'd also add that you might consider asking for cut-outs on the sides to aid cleaning and make the side profile a bit less metaly.
View attachment 641532


Any interest in sub-shapes instead of rectangular steps?

 

[TheElms]

Thanks for all the suggestions!
@voce I'm not concerned about the width of the finger coverage per say (although I do think I want to confirm it isn't so wide that it will feel odd) as I am that it just looks bulky.

@Acinom I think you and @voce are right that it is the three sapphires that are too wide for the width of the spinel. Not sure if I want to do 1-2-2 spinel 2-2-1 or as @elle_71125 suggested just 1-2 spinel 2-1. Will have to give that some thought. I do want a bigger almost cocktail type ring but I also want to be able to wear it!

@rockysalamander I think I'm pretty set on my step art deco type design rather than a more all around design, but I can certainly see the appeal of color on all sides. You are absolutely right about having cut outs to make it less metal-y on the sides.

 

[TheElms]

Looking at the CADs some more there are some additional things I'm seeing:

1. It looks like the bezel around the spinel is at the height of the table of the spinel rather than the edge. It should be at the same height as the edge of the spinel right?

2. The shank says it is 3.1 mm wide at the bottom. That seems too wide. I think I'd prefer 2-2.5mm. Thoughts?

3. I can't exactly tell what is going on with the bezels. I asked DK to do milgrain bezels and I know that doesn't show up in the CADs, but the bezels all look quite wide. The one around the spinel looks wide enough to be milgrain, smooth section, milgrain. I think that would be overkill. I think I just want single milgrain that is the same width around each of the bezels. Thoughts?

My inspiration pic that I sent DK is below. I think it does a better job of explaining at least how the milgrain would look around the sapphires.

4. Does anyone have any good profile shots of art deco bezel rings. I'm looking for ideas on how to do the cutouts that @rockysalamander suggested.

 

[TheElms]

I do like how this bezel is completely open. I can't quite figure out how to do the steps but maybe they would be open as well like the below link. But would that be safe?

https://www.brilliantearth.com/The-Clarke-Ring-White-Gold-BMG51003/
or
https://www.langantiques.com/vintag...-vs2-gia-circular-brilliant-diamond-ring.html

 

[rockysalamander]

Some more ideas you can adapt.

 

[meely]

Lovely stones whatever you do it's going to look amazing. Your sapphire stones are just too big to get the same look as your inspiration ring, as you have no doubt worked out from the CADs. I wasn't clear from your post, is it Art Deco in general you want in particular or Art Deco and stones just to either side? It's just to my eyes, an Art Deco style halo could really work.

 

[TheElms]

@meely I really like the Art Deco style with stones on the side. I'm not as much a fan of the Art Deco styles that are halos. Also, I already have a ring with in a halo setting (my ering) so I'm excited to have a different type of setting to add to my collection - I like the variety of different designs.

 

[voce]

Looking at the CADs some more there are some additional things I'm seeing:

1. It looks like the bezel around the spinel is at the height of the table of the spinel rather than the edge. It should be at the same height as the edge of the spinel right?

2. The shank says it is 3.1 mm wide at the bottom. That seems too wide. I think I'd prefer 2-2.5mm. Thoughts?

3. I can't exactly tell what is going on with the bezels. I asked DK to do milgrain bezels and I know that doesn't show up in the CADs, but the bezels all look quite wide. The one around the spinel looks wide enough to be milgrain, smooth section, milgrain. I think that would be overkill. I think I just want single milgrain that is the same width around each of the bezels. Thoughts?

My inspiration pic that I sent DK is below. I think it does a better job of explaining at least how the milgrain would look around the sapphires.

4. Does anyone have any good profile shots of art deco bezel rings. I'm looking for ideas on how to do the cutouts that @rockysalamander suggested.

1. It's hard for me to tell from that CAD view. I think you're right in that the bezel around the spinel looks a little higher than what you would want, in the finished product, BUT I think you may be forgetting that the bezel will be pushed down over the edge. I think this is similar to cases where you see CAD views of where prongs are noticeably taller than the stone, because it's to be understood that when the prongs are bent to set the stone they will be shorter.

Can I ask you why you chose to go for a bezel setting? Was it a DKJ suggestion? Because your inspiration ring is prong set, and looks more delicate that way. I would prefer a prong setting for your spinel.

2. I think the 3.1mm bezel was meant to match the heavier look using 12 sapphires. But if you go 2-2-1 or 2-1 on either side, I think that 2.5mm would look more proportional. I think the thinner the band, the more delicate it looks, and my preference would be 2-2.5mm too, but I'm not sure it would be wise from a materials strength point of view to get down to 2mm, since the setting plus stones look heavy. Again, if you change the settings to prong settings I think you could taper down to 2mm.

3. Please see what I wrote regarding (1). The bezels may look wider in CAD view, but they will get pushed down over the edge of the gem, so in the finished product they won't look as wide?

4. I think other PS members already provided the pictures.

Hope this helps, and looking forward to hear about what you decide on.

 

[meely]

It's nice to have different styles of settings I agree! I think the suggestions for reducing the number of melee are one way to go. If you wanted to keep the number of stones I wonder if you could do some sort of airline bezel around the spinel to beef the size up and then reduce the bezels around the sapphires.

 

[rockysalamander]

I hope this helps show the proportions. In your inspiration, the first step (orange lines) are about 40-50% the diameter of the center stones. So, showing that on your CAD, that is the second step's size. So, if you want the same proportion, you really need to get smaller side stones. The first step would be about the size of the side bezel height.







As long as you emphasize to DK that you want the setting very delicate and not thick bezel, you will be fine.

 

[TheElms]

@rockysalamander that is a super helpful illustration. Thank you!

I really love the color of the side stones I have and I looked for a while to find something that felt right to me. So, I think I’m strongly leaning towards just having 2 steps rather than 3. Without the bezels, 2 steps is already 18.5 mm wide (2.5,2.5,8.5,2.5,2.5). That seems like plenty even with my desire for something chunkier!

 

[TheElms]

1. It's hard for me to tell from that CAD view. I think you're right in that the bezel around the spinel looks a little higher than what you would want, in the finished product, BUT I think you may be forgetting that the bezel will be pushed down over the edge. I think this is similar to cases where you see CAD views of where prongs are noticeably taller than the stone, because it's to be understood that when the prongs are bent to set the stone they will be shorter.

Can I ask you why you chose to go for a bezel setting? Was it a DKJ suggestion? Because your inspiration ring is prong set, and looks more delicate that way. I would prefer a prong setting for your spinel.

2. I think the 3.1mm bezel was meant to match the heavier look using 12 sapphires. But if you go 2-2-1 or 2-1 on either side, I think that 2.5mm would look more proportional. I think the thinner the band, the more delicate it looks, and my preference would be 2-2.5mm too, but I'm not sure it would be wise from a materials strength point of view to get down to 2mm, since the setting plus stones look heavy. Again, if you change the settings to prong settings I think you could taper down to 2mm.

3. Please see what I wrote regarding (1). The bezels may look wider in CAD view, but they will get pushed down over the edge of the gem, so in the finished product they won't look as wide?

4. I think other PS members already provided the pictures.

Hope this helps, and looking forward to hear about what you decide on.

1. The bezel was my idea. I’m hard on jewelry because I’m klutzy (despite my best efforts to be careful and only wearing it to work/out of the house). I’m concerned about the corners on my spinel so a bezel seems safest especially given how big it is by what I’m used to.

Also I don’t have a bezel setting and would like one! I have a double claw prong ring, in my avatar, and I catch it all the time on clothes. It’s annoying to me. I’ve had my local jeweler look at it and they can’t see an issue with the ring itself so I think it’s me. I guess I could send it back to CVB and see if she could help but I love how it looks. So I want this ring to be a bit less fussy.

Good point on the bezel being pressed down. I had forgotten about that.

2. I’ll talk to DK about what he thinks would be safe. I do not want a structurally unsound ring.

3. You’re probably right! Clearly interpreting CADs is a skill.

4. Thanks everyone for the pictures!