Help with CAD for bezel + halo ring

[Odyssey44]

I just got the CAD back for approval for my peachy pink topaz. I decided to go with a bezel to protect the topaz. My questions are-
Is this bezel going to protect it?
Should the bezel come right up to the top edge of the crown? I know I do not like the look of it wrapping up over the top edge of the crown.
I am not sure aesthetically about the bezel extending up above the halo? I think I would like it best if it the bezel was not a feature, but just a protective separation between the stone and the halo. Is this common and doable?

Thanks for the help!! This is my first bezel ring so I am unsure of myself.

https://imgur.com/a/hTbYUpl

 

[Autumn in New England]

Oh I love this! The bezel looks like it's in the right spot to me, my friend. It's simply there to support the girdle. You definitely don't want it coming up and over any of the crown facets. It won't give it anymore protection, you'll lose apparent spread, and the bezel will be bulky and unsightly. Also keep in mind that topaz is pretty darn hard (8 mohs). It does have perfect cleavage (can we get a new name for this? lol), so that affects toughness, but barring a hard blow, you will be fine. No matter the gem (maybe... MAYBE... with the exclusion of diamond), you simply have to be mindful when wearing them in rings and bracelets. That's just the nature of the beast. But I wouldn't unduly concern myself with it. This is going to be FUN!!

 

[dk168]

Concur with @Autumn in New England that the bezel should be protecting the girdle from being chipped, and it looks great in the CAD to me personally, however, I am not an expert on CADs.

DK

 

[Starstruck8]

I am not sure aesthetically about the bezel extending up above the halo? I think I would like it best if it the bezel was not a feature, but just a protective separation between the stone and the halo. Is this common and doable?

Apologies if I have misunderstood your concern. Is it that the bezel is too low (not protective enough)? In that case, I'd say that low bezels are entirely normal and give as much protection as it is practically reasonable to want. Complete protection is not possible - e.g., you can't protect against knocking the table on the corner of a door handle. Ask me how I know... Or is it that the bezel is too high (i.e., it stands out too much from the surround)? See this picture:


In that case, I see your worry. In my experience, bezels can be made like this (facing in) or facing out. I usually ask for out-facing bezels. In the ring below, the kite is very slightly recessed and the bezel faces out. The trillion is more deeply recessed and the bezel has both in-facing and out-facing sections. The different bezel profiles were a deliberate design choice:


In this example, there's a very slight recess, but the bezel faces out.


As far as I can see, for your ring it should be possible to make the stone less recessed and make the bezel face out. This would make the 'wall' lower. Note that CADs sometimes include 'excess' metal to allow for setting. The excess is then filed away to make the finished bezel profile. You can ask your jeweller about this.

 

[Odyssey44]

Oh I love this! The bezel looks like it's in the right spot to me, my friend. It's simply there to support the girdle. You definitely don't want it coming up and over any of the crown facets. It won't give it anymore protection, you'll lose apparent spread, and the bezel will be bulky and unsightly. Also keep in mind that topaz is pretty darn hard (8 mohs). It does have perfect cleavage (can we get a new name for this? lol), so that affects toughness, but barring a hard blow, you will be fine. No matter the gem (maybe... MAYBE... with the exclusion of diamond), you simply have to be mindful when wearing them in rings and bracelets. That's just the nature of the beast. But I wouldn't unduly concern myself with it. This is going to be FUN!!

It always pleases me no end when you approve one of my purchases Autumn! This is what I wanted to know. Thanks a bunch. The perfect cleavage is what had me worried. (Nothing should have this! ) I can't wait to get the ring. I chose all platinum as I liked the look of the topaz just leaning pink. The whole ring should look quite feminine and delicate.

Concur with @Autumn in New England that the bezel should be protecting the girdle from being chipped, and it looks great in the CAD to me personally, however, I am not an expert on CADs.

DK

Thanks so much DK! I admire your taste in rings so this is very helpful.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your concern. Is it that the bezel is too low (not protective enough)? In that case, I'd say that low bezels are entirely normal and give as much protection as it is practically reasonable to want. Complete protection is not possible - e.g., you can't protect against knocking the table on the corner of a door handle. Ask me how I know... Or is it that the bezel is too high (i.e., it stands out too much from the surround)? See this picture:


In that case, I see your worry. In my experience, bezels can be made like this (facing in) or facing out. I usually ask for out-facing bezels. In the ring below, the kite is very slightly recessed and the bezel faces out. The trillion is more deeply recessed and the bezel has both in-facing and out-facing sections. The different bezel profiles were a deliberate design choice:


In this example, there's a very slight recess, but the bezel faces out.


As far as I can see, for your ring it should be possible to make the stone less recessed and make the bezel face out. This would make the 'wall' lower. Note that CADs sometimes include 'excess' metal to allow for setting. The excess is then filed away to make the finished bezel profile. You can ask your jeweller about this.

Thanks a lot Starstruck! My concerns were both of the things you mentioned, that the bezel was both too low on the stone and yet too high as compared to the rest of the ring. I understand now from Autumn and DK that the bezel is located correctly on the stone's girdle. I feel your pain in hitting your ring with disastrous results!! This is my fear in a nutshell. Bezels facing in or out is a totally new concept for me. I am going to have to re-read this a few times as I think I am having trouble understanding exactly. If the stone is less recessed, would that make it less protected?

 

[Starstruck8]

Thanks a lot Starstruck! My concerns were both of the things you mentioned, that the bezel was both too low on the stone and yet too high as compared to the rest of the ring. I understand now from Autumn and DK that the bezel is located correctly on the stone's girdle. I feel your pain in hitting your ring with disastrous results!! This is my fear in a nutshell. Bezels facing in or out is a totally new concept for me. I am going to have to re-read this a few times as I think I am having trouble understanding exactly. If the stone is less recessed, would that make it less protected?

On protection, see this picture:


Most knocks are on flat objects. Most of these knocks will be taken by the surround (A and B). It's only knocks at lower angles that hit the stone (C). Note that the bezel is gives no protection against most such knocks. The only way to do that would be to sink the stone into a hollow, with the table below the surround. But then you wouldn't be able to see it properly. Note that nothing can protect against knocks from sharp or angled objects (D).

My knock wasn't so disastrous. it just left a barely visible chip. See this post:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-tough-are-garnets.276125/post-5192480

So, short answer, raising the bezel or lowering the stone isn't likely to give usefully more protection. But you may want to lower the stone a bit anyway to reduce the height of the 'metal wall'. Making the top surface of the bezel face out would also help with this with only minimally less protection.

But really, I wouldn't worry too much about protection. I have many rings with softer or brittle stones. The ring I mentioned is the only one I know to have damage. (But then, my motto is to loupe a ring just once, when I receive it. I don't go looking for trouble. ) Your design, with its wide surround, gives better protection than most topaz rings.

By bezel facing in or out, I mean the top surface of the bezel. See this picture:


In your CAD, the top surface of the bezel appears to slope in.

 

[Dreamer_D]

It’s looks good. Who is setting the stone? They will be the one to finish the bezel and ultimately determine how high it is and the angle of the metal.

 

[Odyssey44]

On protection, see this picture:


Most knocks are on flat objects. Most of these knocks will be taken by the surround (A and B). It's only knocks at lower angles that hit the stone (C). Note that the bezel is gives no protection against most such knocks. The only way to do that would be to sink the stone into a hollow, with the table below the surround. But then you wouldn't be able to see it properly. Note that nothing can protect against knocks from sharp or angled objects (D).

My knock wasn't so disastrous. it just left a barely visible chip. See this post:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-tough-are-garnets.276125/post-5192480

So, short answer, raising the bezel or lowering the stone isn't likely to give usefully more protection. But you may want to lower the stone a bit anyway to reduce the height of the 'metal wall'. Making the top surface of the bezel face out would also help with this with only minimally less protection.

But really, I wouldn't worry too much about protection. I have many rings with softer or brittle stones. The ring I mentioned is the only one I know to have damage. (But then, my motto is to loupe a ring just once, when I receive it. I don't go looking for trouble. ) Your design, with its wide surround, gives better protection than most topaz rings.

By bezel facing in or out, I mean the top surface of the bezel. See this picture:


In your CAD, the top surface of the bezel appears to slope in.

Oh, glad to see your garnet just suffered a small chip. I imagined so much worse!
Nooowww I understand about in and out facing. It is all about the slope. The blown up pictures and your comments on them made it click in my mind. Thanks! I agree, sloping out is what I want. The tiny recess is what I like best.

It’s looks good. Who is setting the stone? They will be the one to finish the bezel and ultimately determine how high it is and the angle of the metal.

Thanks Dreamer! I took a chance on NNJ Gemstones as they were running a 25% off sale on settings. These settings were still full price on their website, and they let me choose upgrades still with the 25% off. I sent them my stone so they could customize it perfectly--I think it was a $75 setting fee but I got 25% off that too. I read some good things about them here. I'm really looking forward to getting this back.

 

[Odyssey44]

OK, I have one more thought--I think I would prefer the tapered shank/shoulders to not be tapered. I think it looks a bit out of proportion for a larger stone. Would this look too chunky if I asked for a completely straight shank? I am leaning toward this.

 

[Autumn in New England]

OK, I have one more thought--I think I would prefer the tapered shank/shoulders to not be tapered. I think it looks a bit out of proportion for a larger stone. Would this look too chunky if I asked for a completely straight shank? I am leaning toward this.

I personally love a tapered shank. You could always ask that it be wider all around to support the large head. But I also think it would look perfectly lovely straight. It's really your call! Can't wait to see this finished!!

 

[Autumn in New England]

P.S. I did a tapered shank on my pad ring and it has an enormous head ("heeeeed, mooooove!"). If you get that film reference, we can be best friends.

 

[Odyssey44]

P.S. I did a tapered shank on my pad ring and it has an enormous head ("heeeeed, mooooove!"). If you get that film reference, we can be best friends.

Well Bestie, my sister-in-law is Scottish! But she is not an axe murderer. This is all I am going to hear when I get my ring back. Should have been a spess and it would be even more fitting!
I adore your Pad ring. I need to go look at it again. Do you know the main width of the band? Looks like this one is 2 mm.

 

[Odyssey44]

Just had another look at your stunner of a Pad ring Autumn. I can't even notice the tapering from the front, the head and halo are just that big! It's a dream of a ring.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Well Bestie, my sister-in-law is Scottish! But she is not an axe murderer. This is all I am going to hear when I get my ring back. Should have been a spess and it would be even more fitting!
I adore your Pad ring. I need to go look at it again. Do you know the main width of the band? Looks like this one is 2 mm.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Just had another look at your stunner of a Pad ring Autumn. I can't even notice the tapering from the front, the head and halo are just that big! It's a dream of a ring.

Aww I'm so glad you like it! Yes, the band in the back is a little over 3mm, and it narrows to 1.5mm at the very top. But even where tapered, the shoulders are thick, so it's still substantial.

 

[Odyssey44]

Aww I'm so glad you like it! Yes, the band in the back is a little over 3mm, and it narrows to 1.5mm at the very top. But even where tapered, the shoulders are thick, so it's still substantial.

No, I love it!
I can't tell precisely how narrow this one gets, which is why I am debating the tapering vs straight issue. It is only 2 mm at its widest. I'm also sure it would cost more to go straight, and I am asking myself if it is worth it if I never really see it anyway. I did some math on my own and the length is clearly 20.2 mm, which would mean the width is 17.8 ish mm. That is going to cover my finger from side to side.

 

[Autumn in New England]

No, I love it!
I can't tell precisely how narrow this one gets, which is why I am debating the tapering vs straight issue. It is only 2 mm at its widest.

The narrowest part of your band looks around 1.5mm to me (on my screen it measures 6mm at the widest and 4mm at the narrowest, which would make it around 1.5mm at the narrowest in real life). Don't be afraid to ask the jeweler for all the specs. Keep in mind, the head of my ring is 26mm. So with yours at 20mm, I don't see a problem here. That being said, there's nothing wrong with wanting it to be a solid 2mm on the shoulders too. If it gives you peace of mind, I don't think it'll take anything away from the design.

 

[Dreamer_D]

The taper is subtle and I like it but I just noticed the shank at its widest is only 2mm. I think you might regret such a delicate shank in such a large ring both for strength and for ease or wear. Don’t forget the finished piece will be even thinner after it is polished . I’d be tempted to ask them to widen the base to about 2.5 and keep the taper but proportioned wider as needed for the wider base. The thickness should be about 2. Polishing often decreases these measurements by about 0.1 to 0.2.

 

[Odyssey44]

After much back and forth in my head, I have decided to ask if the band can be increased to 2.5mm with no taper. We'll see if it is possible and how much it will be. I also inquired about the bezel being outward facing toward the halos. Thanks so much for the help everyone and sticking with me to really fine tune this ring!

 

[Dreamer_D]

After much back and forth in my head, I have decided to ask if the band can be increased to 2.5mm with no taper. We'll see if it is possible and how much it will be. I also inquired about the bezel being outward facing toward the halos. Thanks so much for the help everyone and sticking with me to really fine tune this ring!

Perhaps also inquire whether the proportions on the CAD are the finished proportions or then pre-polish proportions. EDIT sometimes these models are used to create the wax for the casting and sometimes they are form illustration and so the proportions can vary in terms of how they represent the finished piece. And will you be able to get a plastic model before it’s made?

 

[Odyssey44]

Ok, I heard back and it is no problem to increase the band to 2.5mm and make it non-tapered. They were not sure what I meant on the outward facing bezel, so I will share your last explanatory picture if that's ok, @Starstruck8. I will ask on whether the 2.5mm is after polishing and about the plastic model @Dreamer_D.