Got the CAD from whiteflash, what do you think?

[PleaseSayYes]

Hi all,

So I got my CAD images today from Whiteflash for the custom ring and band, and just wanted to see what everyone thought of them and if they had any suggestions for changes.

Right now what I''m mainly struggling with is the thinness of the band versus the total sparkliness. I know my girl likes the skinny bands, when we were shopping for 1cts she liked a 1.6mm band, and since this is a 1.46ct stone I told them 1.8mm would be fine. However, I am concerned that the pave diamonds are too small, and wont be shiny (they are all a little under 1pters). If I increase them to 1 pointers or a little above, the band will obviously need to get wider, which should make the center stone stand out less in my opinion.

So what should I do, keep the thin band, or go a little bigger? Scarlet16''s band is my goal and inspiration as far as the mix between dainty and sparkly, but even though this is the same width it just doesn''t look the same.

Any advice on other aspects of it is also appreciated. I am also going to have them change the prong tips to right angles. How does it look?

Thanks!

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Whoops, heres pic 1...

 

[PleaseSayYes]

2:

 

[scarlet16]

Hi there-
Thanks for the compliment!!! I think the problem is it''s very difficult to get a "real sense" of what the ring will be like even with CADs. At 1.8mm, and really well cut stones (which I have no doubt they will be since you''re using WF), the band will still sparkle like the dickens!

With that said, I think the reason it looks different (and you should clarify with WF) is that the "edge" on the side of the diamonds on mine is REALLY REALLY REALLY thin. Like if I hold my hand out, it looks like there is only a row diamonds. On that same point, the "prongs" or "beads" holding the diamonds in are completely invisible unless I hold the ring up 3 inches in front of my eyes (and barely then, and only in the right light). The effect like I said before is basically just a row of diamonds and very very little metal.

HTH!

 

[honey22]

I don''t think you are going to have a problem. The CADs can really throw you off! 1.8mm is the perfect size for that rock. I wouldn''t go thicker, especially if you gf prefers the thin band. I know it''s suprising but 0.2mm can make a big difference in my opinion. I too roughly 0.2mm off my ering band and it made the world of difference! Those little stones are going to sparkle like mad!! I second the idea to stress the importance of as little an amount of metal around the stones as possible and it will be a stunner!!!! Can''t wait to see the real photos!!

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Hi Scarlett! Yeah I have discussed with them and they have assured me the border around the pave is as thin as it could be made by them, I have not talked about the mini prongs though, do you think they would be able to shrink those, or is the tiny ones just a benefit of going with Leon and I shouldn't hope for that level of picky customization?

And Honey, thanks for the input, I agree small changes in thickness can make a world of difference, I just want to find the right thinness to sparkle ratio, which very well may be this 1.8

!

 

[mrssalvo]

1.8 is tiny thin. i wouldn't go any thinner. My ring is 2.5 mm and still really thin so 1.8-2mm will be perfect IMO.

I think the cads look great..

 

[honey22]

Date: 6/21/2008 6:08:15 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes
Hi Scarlett! Yeah I have discussed with them and they have assured me the border around the pave is as thin as it could be made by them, I have not talked about the mini prongs though, do you think they would be able to shrink those, or is the tiny ones just a benefit of going with Leon and I shouldn''t hope for that level of picky customization?

And Honey, thanks for the input, I agree small changes in thickness can make a world of difference, I just want to find the right thinness to sparkle ratio

.

I absolutely understand! Who knew one could get so stressed about 0.2mm hey? I drove my BF mad with the same dilemma a few months ago. We understand ya here babe!!

 

[Shay37]

I have a thin band with just under 1 pointers to do the sparkling. It really does sparkle. It is amazing how much shimmer you can get out of diamonds this tiny. They also throw off colored fire too. I think you will be happy with them.

shay

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Thanks all!

So, if the vote was between what it currently is, or changing to 1 pointers and 1.95mm, which would most of you choose?

 

[jstarfireb]

I don''t think you''ll have an issue with the center stone...it will stand out no matter how thick you make the band! A 1.6ct princess is just like that.

With respect to the overall design, I''d suggest considering the Legato head from WF. IMHO, it''s so much more elegant than the regular princess head!

 

[Lynn B]

You're asking opinions, right?
OK, I LOVE the band(s)

... the head? Um, not so much.
Not very crazy about those chunky, blocky, squared-off, mall-store looking prong shafts. But that's an EASY FIX at this stage of the game!
(Just my humble 2 cents!)

 

[scarlet16]

Date: 6/22/2008 3:06:50 PM
Author: Lynn B
You''re asking opinions, right?

OK, I LOVE the band(s)

... the head? Um, not so much.

Not very crazy about those chunky, blocky, squared-off, mall-store looking prong shafts. But that''s an EASY FIX at this stage of the game!

(Just my humble 2 cents!)

You didn''t ask about the head initially, so I didn''t mention it...but I really have to agree with Lynn. The band is SO delicate and the head just seems very bulky. Maybe there''s a way to make it match a bit more?

Also, I would keep it at 1.8mm. It is a GORGEOUS width and the stones will still definitely sparkle!

 

[kcoursolle]

If she likes thin bands, I would keep them just the way they are. The diamonds in pave are more like a sheen than a sparkle, but very pretty and I think she will like it if she likes thin bands. As far as the CAD goes though, I would do something different with the crown (head) of the setting. It looks a little thick and chunky, sorry if I''m being too honest. I would change it to something swoopier and more delicate.

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Thank you!! This is exactly the stuff I need. Be brutal, you all can lie and say it''s perfect after it''s been made

. I had called and asked Joe, their CAD guy, about the head on Friday, and he said that it was the only part that they didn''t custom do in house I think. The reason I was leaning against something like the Legato head is that I''m all for showing off as much of the center stone as possible (I''m proud of it) and didn''t want a gallery thing on the side.

I agree though, this head looks way bulky over what I''d like, even though they said more metal will be shown in the CAD than on the actual ring. Any advice on what I should say or show them as far as heads go to make it perfect?

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 6/22/2008 4:31:38 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes
Thank you!! This is exactly the stuff I need. Be brutal, you all can lie and say it''s perfect after it''s been made

. I had called and asked Joe, their CAD guy, about the head on Friday, and he said that it was the only part that they didn''t custom do in house I think. The reason I was leaning against something like the Legato head is that I''m all for showing off as much of the center stone as possible (I''m proud of it) and didn''t want a gallery thing on the side.

I agree though, this head looks way bulky over what I''d like, even though they said more metal will be shown in the CAD than on the actual ring. Any advice on what I should say or show them as far as heads go to make it perfect?

I''ve always loved Lynnb''s head if you need inspiration. I like it better than the legato head because it''s integrated into the shank more, but still allows bands to sit flush.

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Date: 6/22/2008 4:37:44 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Date: 6/22/2008 4:31:38 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes
Thank you!! This is exactly the stuff I need. Be brutal, you all can lie and say it''s perfect after it''s been made

. I had called and asked Joe, their CAD guy, about the head on Friday, and he said that it was the only part that they didn''t custom do in house I think. The reason I was leaning against something like the Legato head is that I''m all for showing off as much of the center stone as possible (I''m proud of it) and didn''t want a gallery thing on the side.

I agree though, this head looks way bulky over what I''d like, even though they said more metal will be shown in the CAD than on the actual ring. Any advice on what I should say or show them as far as heads go to make it perfect?

I''ve always loved Lynnb''s head if you need inspiration. I like it better than the legato head because it''s integrated into the shank more, but still allows bands to sit flush.

Oooh, I do like that. 2 things... think they could make that one without the gallery, or is it there for support of the small prongs? Also, would this work with a princess cut, and right angle prong tips, or look weird?

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 6/22/2008 4:52:00 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes

Date: 6/22/2008 4:37:44 PM
Author: kcoursolle

Date: 6/22/2008 4:31:38 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes
Thank you!! This is exactly the stuff I need. Be brutal, you all can lie and say it''s perfect after it''s been made

. I had called and asked Joe, their CAD guy, about the head on Friday, and he said that it was the only part that they didn''t custom do in house I think. The reason I was leaning against something like the Legato head is that I''m all for showing off as much of the center stone as possible (I''m proud of it) and didn''t want a gallery thing on the side.

I agree though, this head looks way bulky over what I''d like, even though they said more metal will be shown in the CAD than on the actual ring. Any advice on what I should say or show them as far as heads go to make it perfect?

I''ve always loved Lynnb''s head if you need inspiration. I like it better than the legato head because it''s integrated into the shank more, but still allows bands to sit flush.

Oooh, I do like that. 2 things... think they could make that one without the gallery, or is it there for support of the small prongs? Also, would this work with a princess cut, and right angle prong tips, or look weird?

I think it would look great with a princess cut and they do make similar heads with princesses. However, it probably won''t have enough support without the bar on the gallery...best to ask them to make sure though.

 

[Lynn B]

You have several choices.

One of them is that those prongs (currently "as is") can be shaved down and shaped to be surprisingly thinner, rounder and swoopier. That simple modification, by a skilled benchman, can make an AMAZING difference. You just have to be sure to communicate that clearly to WF, and I would use those exact words.

OR, you can have the head changed entirely... and one choice is the Legato head. I am sure WF has done the Legato head with a PC stone, but I personally don''t remember ever seeing one. I love the head on my ring, and believe me, that small scallop does not in any way "take away" from my stone.

And also, FWIW, while all the diffferent "views" of the ring are definitely important, it''s gonna be the top down view that (IMVHO) gives you the "TA DA!" effect. So when planning the head, think delicate, swoopy, scoopy, rounded, etc., but don''t forget it needs to be structurally sound enough to hold that lovely rock.

Again, just my humble opinion! BTW, you''re doing great!

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Date: 6/22/2008 5:31:16 PM
Author: Lynn B
You have several choices.

One of them is that those prongs (currently ''as is'') can be shaved down and shaped to be surprisingly thinner, rounder and swoopier. That simple modification, by a skilled benchman, can make an AMAZING difference. You just have to be sure to communicate that clearly to WF, and I would use those exact words.

OR, you can have the head changed entirely... and one choice is the Legato head. I am sure WF has done the Legato head with a PC stone, but I personally don''t remember ever seeing one. I love the head on my ring, and believe me, that small scallop does not in any way ''take away'' from my stone.

And also, FWIW, while all the diffferent ''views'' of the ring are definitely important, it''s gonna be the top down view that (IMVHO) gives you the ''TA DA!'' effect. So when planning the head, think delicate, swoopy, scoopy, rounded, etc., but don''t forget it needs to be structurally sound enough to hold that lovely rock.

Again, just my humble opinion! BTW, you''re doing great!

Thanks Lynn! I actually really like how your prongs strike through the band, moreso than the Legato look, and I think I''ll take the scallop over the bulky prongs. You are right, top down is the important part, and I also love how low your big stone is able to sit and still have everything flush! What did you ask for specifically to get your prongs made like that? I''d like to see if they could produce something similar for the head, and maybe even forward them some of your pictures for an example if its ok by you

.

Also, do you happen to have your CAD pic from whiteflash? I didn''t see it on your ring thread, and would like to know what a great ring looks like in CAD so I''ll have some perspective.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 6/22/2008 5:58:33 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes

Thanks Lynn! I actually really like how your prongs strike through the band, moreso than the Legato look, and I think I''ll take the scallop over the bulky prongs. You are right, top down is the important part, and I also love how low your big stone is able to sit and still have everything flush! What did you ask for specifically to get your prongs made like that? I''d like to see if they could produce something similar for the head, and maybe even forward them some of your pictures for an example if its ok by you

.

Also, do you happen to have your CAD pic from whiteflash? I didn''t see it on your ring thread, and would like to know what a great ring looks like in CAD so I''ll have some perspective.

No problem, glad to help!

Thanks for the compliments. The head on my e-ring was actually the first (*original*) "Legato" head. It was (of course) a custom job and I FAX''ed images to WF of the scallop design as I wanted it.

I asked for my diamond to be set as low ("squatty") as possible, and for the prong shafts and tips to be smooth and rounded and delicate. No harsh, sharp edges. I also asked for the entire shape of the head to be swoopy and scoopy, I wanted to prongs to "cup" the diamond. And I specified that I wanted the two rings to be able to sit flush.

Of course you many use or send any of my photos that you want. Please feel free; I am honored and flattered.

You know, I never got any CAD images... funny that I just now realized that. I just got the wax models. My project was several years ago, though... maybe things have changed somewhat since then in the custom department?

 

[Diamond*Dana]

I think that the CAD''s look great, it will be beautiful, but I have to agree about the head...it was the first thing that I noticed. I do likr the head on LynnB''s and I think that would look gorgeous with your ring. I really like when the head is part of the shank.

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/21/2008 6:08:15 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes
Hi Scarlett! Yeah I have discussed with them and they have assured me the border around the pave is as thin as it could be made by them, I have not talked about the mini prongs though, do you think they would be able to shrink those, or is the tiny ones just a benefit of going with Leon and I shouldn''t hope for that level of picky customization?


And Honey, thanks for the input, I agree small changes in thickness can make a world of difference, I just want to find the right thinness to sparkle ratio, which very well may be this 1.8

!

I can tell you from first hand experience that WF is fully capable of making really small prongs that cup the diamond. The CAD is not a fair representation of what the prongs will look like IRL. But you should communicate to your S/A what you want in terms of smallish prongs, and rest assured sure, the prongs won''t look like they do in the CAD. Take a look at all the CADs on PS, and then the final ring and you will see exactly what I mean. It''s a gorgeous ring, by the way! Your fiance will love it.

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Date: 6/22/2008 8:40:25 PM
Author: Isabelle

Date: 6/21/2008 6:08:15 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes
Hi Scarlett! Yeah I have discussed with them and they have assured me the border around the pave is as thin as it could be made by them, I have not talked about the mini prongs though, do you think they would be able to shrink those, or is the tiny ones just a benefit of going with Leon and I shouldn''t hope for that level of picky customization?


And Honey, thanks for the input, I agree small changes in thickness can make a world of difference, I just want to find the right thinness to sparkle ratio, which very well may be this 1.8

!

I can tell you from first hand experience that WF is fully capable of making really small prongs that cup the diamond. The CAD is not a fair representation of what the prongs will look like IRL. But you should communicate to your S/A what you want in terms of smallish prongs, and rest assured sure, the prongs won''t look like they do in the CAD. Take a look at all the CADs on PS, and then the final ring and you will see exactly what I mean. It''s a gorgeous ring, by the way! Your fiance will love it.

Thanks Isabelle! So, do you think if I sent a pic of Lynn''s ring to them and asked that the prongs be molded like that, but with right angle tips, that I would not have to make them change the head or add a side bar thing? I still may make them redo it since the head cutting in to the ring itself is definately growing on me, but this would be the simpler option

. Thanks for the compliment on the ring too, the GF has no idea this is coming and therefore can''t help, so it''s so nice to have some ladies'' eyes for all of this.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 6/22/2008 9:57:52 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes

Thanks Isabelle! So, do you think if I sent a pic of Lynn''s ring to them and asked that the prongs be molded like that, but with right angle tips, that I would not have to make them change the head or add a side bar thing? I still may make them redo it since the head cutting in to the ring itself is definately growing on me, but this would be the simpler option

. Thanks for the compliment on the ring too, the GF has no idea this is coming and therefore can''t help, so it''s so nice to have some ladies'' eyes for all of this.

Haha, hey, PSY, the term for that is an "integrated head" style (vs. a "peg head" style, which is just what it sounds like -- a head on a "peg", placed down into a hole in the shank.)

Just want to help make sure you sound ever-so-savvy when you talk to WF!

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Date: 6/23/2008 12:08:57 AM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 6/22/2008 9:57:52 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes

Thanks Isabelle! So, do you think if I sent a pic of Lynn''s ring to them and asked that the prongs be molded like that, but with right angle tips, that I would not have to make them change the head or add a side bar thing? I still may make them redo it since the head cutting in to the ring itself is definately growing on me, but this would be the simpler option

. Thanks for the compliment on the ring too, the GF has no idea this is coming and therefore can''t help, so it''s so nice to have some ladies'' eyes for all of this.

Haha, hey, PSY, the term for that is an ''integrated head'' style (vs. a ''peg head'' style, which is just what it sounds like -- a head on a ''peg'', placed down into a hole in the shank.)

Just want to help make sure you sound ever-so-savvy when you talk to WF!

lol, I''ll be sure and note that. A month ago I would have walked in and said, "Could I have it made where the, uh, shiny thing, sits on the silver part with some holders on it, and then, um, maybe some smaller shiny things around it? Ok thanks WF..." so I''m definately trying to improve fast

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/22/2008 9:57:52 PM
Author: PleaseSayYes

Date: 6/22/2008 8:40:25 PM

Author: Isabelle

Date: 6/21/2008 6:08:15 PM

Author: PleaseSayYes

Hi Scarlett! Yeah I have discussed with them and they have assured me the border around the pave is as thin as it could be made by them, I have not talked about the mini prongs though, do you think they would be able to shrink those, or is the tiny ones just a benefit of going with Leon and I shouldn''t hope for that level of picky customization?



And Honey, thanks for the input, I agree small changes in thickness can make a world of difference, I just want to find the right thinness to sparkle ratio, which very well may be this 1.8

!

I can tell you from first hand experience that WF is fully capable of making really small prongs that cup the diamond. The CAD is not a fair representation of what the prongs will look like IRL. But you should communicate to your S/A what you want in terms of smallish prongs, and rest assured sure, the prongs won''t look like they do in the CAD. Take a look at all the CADs on PS, and then the final ring and you will see exactly what I mean. It''s a gorgeous ring, by the way! Your fiance will love it.

Thanks Isabelle! So, do you think if I sent a pic of Lynn''s ring to them and asked that the prongs be molded like that, but with right angle tips, that I would not have to make them change the head or add a side bar thing? I still may make them redo it since the head cutting in to the ring itself is definately growing on me, but this would be the simpler option

. Thanks for the compliment on the ring too, the GF has no idea this is coming and therefore can''t help, so it''s so nice to have some ladies'' eyes for all of this.

Hi PSY! This is my sincerest advice: ask the S/A to ask the experts over there and do whatever they advise you to do. The fact is, that they make rings every day, and I saw SO MANY of them when I was at their offices and they were ALL so beautiful. They simply know more than we know about what works, what doesn''t, what will achieve the aesthetic *YOU want*. So, I would communicate clearly to the S/A and maybe even follow up with an email expressing your desires regarding the prongs and asking about the head. Then seriously, you should go with what they advise you. And maybe you might even get them to seek Brian''s input on it. PLEASE let us know what they told you today. And I will tell you again: the CAD won''t be 50% of what the final ring is. Trust me on this one. I can''t wait to hear how it all turns out.

 

[PleaseSayYes]

Just got back from my meeting with Whiteflash...

I am so glad I went! I met with Joe the CAD guy again, and he was again very helpful in showing me exactly what was up with my ring. It was so awesome and worth it to be able to sit there and manipulate my finished CAD on his computer together, for anyone ordering your ring from WF, I definately suggest going in if at all possible, it was great.

I came armed with close-ups of Lynn''s head design and Scarlet''s pave delicacy, and talked each one through with Joe. First about the head, the CAD they had produced for me made the top of the stone sit up 8mm from the finger, which is very high for what I was going for. With the band height at 1.6mm and the stone depth at 4.8mm, the minimum possible height (with no donut) is 6.4mm, so we talked it through and he thinks that somewhere between 6.4mm and 7mm is workable with Lynn''s head, the challenge being incorporating the bar gallery with a princess and still having the prongs "cup" the diamond and not flare out, if that makes any sense.

I also talked about the dainty-ness of the prongs, and he assured me they would be delicate, and convinced me to put round prong tips on top, so that it will look smooth coming down the prong and not have a crease. He assured me the tips of the princess will still be protected, which was a concern of mine.

Next, we talked about the pave. I showed him scarlet''s picture as an example of a 1.8mm band that used at least 1 pointer diamonds, and asked him basically why it couldn''t be done here. He said the minimum he can make the borders on my ring is .3mm, and since a 1 point round is 1.4mm in diameter, the result would be 1.4+.3+.3 = 2mm. After some discussion over this, he agreed to ask the master jeweler later if he would be comfortable shifting it to .2mm borders, which would then give me the 1.8. He said he would call me when he finds out if it can be done or not, but if not I''m going to stick to the smaller diamonds. Also, the mini prongs were a concern, and he said that the crafters like the prongs to be big so that they are easier to set, but he can shrink them down for me so they are not as noticable, they might just be harder to set.

So that is pretty much where we left it. He is going to talk to the jewler and then make me another CAD, and he said the CAD may look weird this time around because of a different process they may use to get the borders thinner if they do it (most of this went over my head, he started talking about drilling small holes and treating it as if their were no border, then making one after, something like that). Still, overall I''m excited that they are working with me through my analness of this all, and again, thank you everyone for helping me with advice!

I''ll post when I get any updates!

 

[Isabelle]

So glad it went well. And you are going to get a ring that will knock your socks off. Can''t wait to see the finished product.