How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final product

ascari_2 · Oct 5, 2012

So for the last few weeks I have been trying to work with a PS vendor on replicating a setting that I saw at a local jeweler. I'd provided this vendor with relatively detailed photos of the setting and specific instructions on how I want the ring to look. The first set of CADs has the melee placement wrong and those stones were too small. I made a few comments pointing out those problems and the second set of CADs was admittedly closer to what I was hoping to see in the ring design. Expecting that we are coming close to a final design, I outlined a number of things I wanted changed, providing very specific instructions on what needed to be changed. Unfortunately the third set of CADs looked drastically different from what I had hoped, seemingly not incorporating many of my modification requests. I actually received renderings from two different rings (all be it the vendor just probably wanting to show some features from the second ring).

So my question, should I expect to see a rendering of my ring that is supposed to have similar proportions and angles to what I specifically want, or does this come about during the actual manufacturing stage. I am just having a hard time saying "let's cast" when the ring in the pictures is not what I am looking for.

Thanks

Enerchi · Oct 5, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Would it be at all possible to just go directly to the original manufacturer who makes the setting you are trying to copy? IS that an option? I guess it depends how far along the process you are with this vendor... and how much money you have committed. If not too far along, perhaps going with the original would be money better spent???

For my 2 CAD experiences, both looked almost exactly like the finished product - the finishing and polishing details are lacking and it always appeared a bit like thick poles vs thin wires, but in the end both of mine worked out beautifully. No experience with pave or melee placement.

yssie · Oct 5, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

The CAD is just someone using some programme (usually Rhino 3D I believe) to create a design model that's representative of the aesthetic you're looking for and that will produce an output (wax) from which a mold can be made to successfully cast a structurally sound piece from.. some questions/roadblocks -
- Does the designer understand exactly what you're looking for?
- Is the designer skilled enough with the programme to actually make the model well?
- Does he have a good understanding (hopefully a lot better than yours!) of what will and won't translate into a structurally sound product?
- Does he have an idea of how nuances *can* change between CAD and product? I think this is what you're talking about, but this is actually mostly dependent on the finishing - polishing can make shoulder curves straighter, bends softer, prongs and wires thinner... so this question is really if he has an understanding of how to compensate for the changes that finishing a piece makes in the CAD so that the product that that particular bench produces has the curves and graduations and depth that you're looking for.. this sort of understanding of not only the overall process but also how that specific bench usually works is unusual, I think.

Those are the generic questions, where exactly in all of that you and your vendor are getting tripped up... If there's melee involved the CAD shouldn't be an exact representation, it should be bulkier/thicker/more boldly outlined, but "bulky"/"thick"/"bold" are pretty vague, and really do depend on your designer and bench!

I've had a number of pieces made (CAD/CAM) by the same vendor now (WF is my go-to), so I've learnt how to translate (and so anticipate) some of those CAD-to-product nuances, but I think it's bench-specific. I also think that once you work with a given bench enough *they* start to figure out what *you* like to see.

chrono · Oct 5, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

My experience is that the CADs show pretty much the final outcome, other than some bits of metal finished much better in person. Melee and pave placement are also accurate to the last detail. When one vendor I worked with just couldn't nail the fine detail I wanted in the CAD, the actual ring reflected that too, so in the end, we both agreed to scrap the project.

diamondseeker2006 · Oct 5, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

CADS almost always look bulkier to me than the finished ring.

Gypsy · Oct 5, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Some CADs are better than others. Some are really bulky and are mostly conceptual and for perspective and proportion. Some are almost exactly like the final piece.

Here are some of my CADs.

and

Here's the WAX cast from the CADs. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ps-humor-pendant-wax-neck-and-flower-shots.113675/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ps-humor-pendant-wax-neck-and-flower-shots.113675/[/URL])

Here's the pendant itself:

ascari_2 · Oct 5, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

It may be easier to ask if I put the question in perspective.

I started out providing the vendor with the following photos:
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring1.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring2.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring3.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring4.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring5.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring6.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring7.jpg

In the photos where there are two rings, it's the one on the right. I mentioned that I want basically that exact setting with the bigger melee stones being places 2 in the center of each side of the halo and on on the corner.

I received the first set of CADs and this is what they looked like:
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA1%20v1.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA7%20v1.jpg

There are more pics, but there give a good idea of what was shown in the others. I noticed right away the smaller melees and fact they their placement was not what I wanted. I mentioned that and also made a note about the struts having a low angle.

The second round followed shortly:
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YRC1.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YRC4.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YRC6.jpg

Again there were more photos, but these show the design pretty well. At this point things looked promising. However I did come up with a list of things I wanted changed to make the setting look more like the one in the original photos. Here's an actual quote from my email asking for a number of changes:

1. It’s a little unclear from the side profile view, but I would like to keep the width of the shank the same as the diameter of the shank stones. This width/diameter of shank stones should not exceed 2mm. Somewhere between 1.9mm and 2mm would be ideal. Right now, the side profile view seems to indicate that the width of the shank is greater than the stones.
2. Bring the shank stones closer together if possible.
3. I would like to raise the center stone a little bit so that it’s not flush with the halo. I think raising it about 0.5mm would do the trick.
4. The halo stones should be slightly larger (closer to the 2.3mm mark). Hopefully this will accomplish several things.
*First, it will close the currently visible gaps between the halo stones. I would like the halo stones to be almost touching each other. As it stands right now, there is too much metal visible between the stones.
*Second, it will provide a more scalloped look on the outside of the halo (similar to the view in "ring7.jpg" which I've attached for your convenience).
*And third, it will fill in the gap between the center stone and the halo, which may come about because the stone will be raised slightly.
5. If making the halo stones larger (bringing them up to the 2.3mm mark) does not close the gap between those stones, fails to provide the scalloped look, or fails to reduce the gap between the center and the halo, then it may be necessary to decrease the size of the halo itself so that less metal is visible and the halo stones are bunched up closer together.
6. The prongs holding the halo and the shank stones should be split prong (I know you’d mentioned that the last set of CADs simply failed to show that in the halo stones, however, not having a proper simulation makes it difficult for me to foresee the actual final design).
7. Make the prongs holding the center stone less pointed and instead more rounded.
8. Add a little more metal on the bottom of the basket under the halos. Hopefully this can be better understood with reference to the following attached photos. If you refer to “ring4 (edited).jpg” you will see that I’ve indicated a certain thickness of metal that exists under the halo stones. This thickness if a lot less in the CAD view that you provided “YRC2 (edited).jpg”. I would like to add this layer of metal to provide a little bit of a thicker look to the basket.
9. Lastly, I would also like to replicate what is shown in the original photo where the side of the halo rounds down into the underside of the basket in a in a soft fashion. This is pointed out in the “ring4 (edited2).jpg” file. I’ve also included both unedited photos for your convenience.

I was hoping that after this round, the ring would be ready for a wax cast. However, what I got in return were these (and these are all the renderings that I received):
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA1%20v3.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA2%20v3.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA3%20v3.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA4%20v3.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA5%20v3.jpg
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YA6%20v3.jpg

As you can tell, now the ring looks even less like it's supposed to and the CADs are actually from two different rings. So what gives. All I want to do it have a setting which looks like the one in the photos.

As for going to the original jeweler, there is certainly that possibility. I specifically picked this vendor because they were recommended on here as specializing in quality pave settings. But if I can't get the setting to look right I may have to look at other options.

-Thanks

Gypsy · Oct 6, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Okay so, that helped.

I'm sorry to say that you are causing some of the problem. You are trying to dictate too much, and aren't giving them the correct instructions. Or rather, your instructions show a lack of knowledge about jewelry design and manufacturer which is normal. And your vendor can't really say that. And is probably as frustrated as you are.

I think you are okay with your vendor, I really do.

The problem with the first round of CADs is that the two settings you provided are not as similar as you think they are. The stone placement on the halo between the two is very different. As are the shanks. So you provided what are two very different rings for inspiration and asked them to match it. One of those settings has a TON of metal between the stones. Well, they tried to combine the two designs and that didn't meet what you wanted. So they tried again.

The second round are much closer to one of the rings. And is a very nice rendering. And actually very close to what I, and they, probably thought you wanted.

Then you gave new instructions. And in those new instructions there are a number of issues. It's easier for me to cut and paste what your instructions were to tell you what those issues are.

1. It’s a little unclear from the side profile view, but I would like to keep the width of the shank the same as the diameter of the shank stones. This width/diameter of shank stones should not exceed 2mm. Somewhere between 1.9mm and 2mm would be ideal. Right now, the side profile view seems to indicate that the width of the shank is greater than the stones. All you really needed to say was that you want the shank width not to exceed 2mm. They need the extra metal you see for polishing. The U scoops you see from the profile will provide the look you want, when you are staring down at it, of having the girdles of the stones pass the width of the metal slightly. That said, that places those girdles at risk so a good vendor will try to provide as much invisible metal underneath those stones to keep them safe
2. Bring the shank stones closer together if possible. This is okay.
3. I would like to raise the center stone a little bit so that it’s not flush with the halo. I think raising it about 0.5mm would do the trick. This is largely a function of setting the stone AFTER the ring is cast. It's not a matter that can be addressed through the CAD process.
4. The halo stones should be slightly larger (closer to the 2.3mm mark) The problem with this is that you want LESS metal, but are making the stones larger and you want to maintain the existing stone placement on the halo. These are conflicting goals. . Hopefully this will accomplish several things.
*First, it will close the currently visible gaps between the halo stones. No. The stones are larger and will need MORE metal to hold them. That metal has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is between the stones. So making the stones larger AND expecting them to be closer together is not going to work I would like the halo stones to be almost touching each other. As it stands right now, there is too much metal visible between the stones. You are looking at a very large representation of a very small thing. The metal between the stones in the 2nd round of renderings is fine. Leave that be.
*Second, it will provide a more scalloped look on the outside of the halo You want a scalloped look, but no metal. That means really large stones, set with prongs like a shared prong band. That's not pave. If you want a scalloped look with PAVE you will have metal on the outside of the girdles to give it that scalloped look. I think what you have in the Second CAD rounds is good. Just ask them to leave air gaps between the stones, at the outside edge of the halo, instead of filling all the space between the holes with metal. That will mean they will need to do almost a shared prong setting on the halo stones with the pave
*And third, it will fill in the gap between the center stone and the halo, which may come about because the stone will be raised slightly. No, the best way to do this is with metal. This is a bad instruction.
5. If making the halo stones larger (bringing them up to the 2.3mm mark) does not close the gap between those stones, fails to provide the scalloped look, or fails to reduce the gap between the center and the halo, then it may be necessary to decrease the size of the halo itself so that less metal is visible and the halo stones are bunched up closer together. No. Tell them to ignore this
6. The prongs holding the halo and the shank stones should be split prong (I know you’d mentioned that the last set of CADs simply failed to show that in the halo stones, however, not having a proper simulation makes it difficult for me to foresee the actual final design). Don't try to control this level. Your instruction makes no sense in jewelry making terms.
7. Make the prongs holding the center stone less pointed and instead more rounded. That's a finishing detail, and has nothing to do with CADs. It's all handled by the stone setter.
8. Add a little more metal on the bottom of the basket under the halos. Hopefully this can be better understood with reference to the following attached photos. If you refer to “ring4 (edited).jpg” you will see that I’ve indicated a certain thickness of metal that exists under the halo stones. This thickness if a lot less in the CAD view that you provided “YRC2 (edited).jpg”. I would like to add this layer of metal to provide a little bit of a thicker look to the basket. WHY? This doesn't make sense at all, sorry
9. Lastly, I would also like to replicate what is shown in the original photo where the side of the halo rounds down into the underside of the basket in a in a soft fashion. This is pointed out in the “ring4 (edited2).jpg” file. I’ve also included both unedited photos for your convenience. Incorrect instruction. What you want is the halo angled about 25% away from the center stone. That's what you are seeing and trying to replicate. They probably had no idea what you meant which is why the CAD turned out the way it did.

Just go back and tell them to eliminate the last round of CADs and go back to the second round. Then send them the above, with my edits and see what it gets you.

You accused me, in the other thread, of having only rudementary knowledge of patents and with playing armchair quarterback with it. Well, you are doing the same thing here. If you picked the right vendor, this is NOT a difficult design, you should trust them and not try to micromanage them with your very rudimentary knowledge.

It's natural for control freaks to do this. And I did the same thing with my first custom project. But it's counter productive. If I could I would upload my 14 page powerpoint presentation for my first project for you, so you could see.

Take a deep breath. Take a step back. And also... talking on the phone with vendors is a good thing sometimes. They can ask you questions back and say things like... "I'm not sure what you are asking, can you explain it to me a different way." Or re-state things for you so you can see if they understand it, or if they aren't getting it, and vice versa.

distracts · Oct 6, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Ditto Gypsy, except I was too lazy to type it all out.

ascari_2 · Oct 6, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Gypsy|1349499164|3280405 said:
Okay so, that helped.

I'm sorry to say that you are causing some of the problem. You are trying to dictate too much, and aren't giving them the correct instructions. Or rather, your instructions show a lack of knowledge about jewelry design and manufacturer which is normal. And your vendor can't really say that. And is probably as frustrated as you are.

I completely agree that my jewelry knowledge is lacking...that's why I am here

I think you are okay with your vendor, I really do.

The problem with the first round of CADs is that the two settings you provided are not as similar as you think they are. The stone placement on the halo between the two is very different. As are the shanks. So you provided what are two very different rings for inspiration and asked them to match it. One of those settings has a TON of metal between the stones. Well, they tried to combine the two designs and that didn't meet what you wanted. So they tried again.

This was made as clear as daylight that the second (left ring) was not to be considered. It just happened to be in the picture and should be completely disregarded. From the start I insisted that I am trying to replicate the look of the ring on the right as much as I can, metal, stones, outlines, and all.

The second round are much closer to one of the rings. And is a very nice rendering. And actually very close to what I, and they, probably thought you wanted.

I was actually very pleased with the second set and thought we were very close to the finished product.

Then you gave new instructions. And in those new instructions there are a number of issues. It's easier for me to cut and paste what your instructions were to tell you what those issues are.

1. It’s a little unclear from the side profile view, but I would like to keep the width of the shank the same as the diameter of the shank stones. This width/diameter of shank stones should not exceed 2mm. Somewhere between 1.9mm and 2mm would be ideal. Right now, the side profile view seems to indicate that the width of the shank is greater than the stones. All you really needed to say was that you want the shank width not to exceed 2mm. They need the extra metal you see for polishing. The U scoops you see from the profile will provide the look you want, when you are staring down at it, of having the girdles of the stones pass the width of the metal slightly. That said, that places those girdles at risk so a good vendor will try to provide as much invisible metal underneath those stones to keep them safe

Fair enough.

2. Bring the shank stones closer together if possible. This is okay.

3. I would like to raise the center stone a little bit so that it’s not flush with the halo. I think raising it about 0.5mm would do the trick. This is largely a function of setting the stone AFTER the ring is cast. It's not a matter that can be addressed through the CAD process.

The reason for requesting this is that if a center stone is set higher, there will be a larger gap between the stone and halo itself. Actually seeing how big this gap is could have provided further guidance on whether the halo itself should be made smaller, or if the gap is small enough where it is not an issue. I know that the height could easily be adjusted during the setting process, but I am not sure the same holds true for the overall dimensions of the halo.

4. The halo stones should be slightly larger (closer to the 2.3mm mark) The problem with this is that you want LESS metal, but are making the stones larger and you want to maintain the existing stone placement on the halo. These are conflicting goals. . Hopefully this will accomplish several things.

What I am trying to lessen is the metal showing right in between the actual stones. I completely understand that bigger stones will require bigger prongs, and I am completely fine with that. It is, after all, how the original photo looks.

*First, it will close the currently visible gaps between the halo stones. No. The stones are larger and will need MORE metal to hold them. That metal has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is between the stones. So making the stones larger AND expecting them to be closer together is not going to work I would like the halo stones to be almost touching each other. As it stands right now, there is too much metal visible between the stones. You are looking at a very large representation of a very small thing. The metal between the stones in the 2nd round of renderings is fine. Leave that be.

Fair enough

*Second, it will provide a more scalloped look on the outside of the halo You want a scalloped look, but no metal. That means really large stones, set with prongs like a shared prong band. That's not pave. If you want a scalloped look with PAVE you will have metal on the outside of the girdles to give it that scalloped look. I think what you have in the Second CAD rounds is good. Just ask them to leave air gaps between the stones, at the outside edge of the halo, instead of filling all the space between the holes with metal. That will mean they will need to do almost a shared prong setting on the halo stones with the pave

Actually all the stones will be held with split prongs. This is what is shown in the original pics and this was pointed out from the get-go. The "scalloped look" that I am referring to here is the flower-like appearance of the setting when looking straight from the top. If you look at the original ring, the outline of each stone in the halo protrudes beyond the halo. I am trying to accomplish that exact look.

*And third, it will fill in the gap between the center stone and the halo, which may come about because the stone will be raised slightly. No, the best way to do this is with metal. This is a bad instruction.

Probably stems from my lack of knowledge. But, this goes back to the whole subject of raising the stone and avoiding too big of a gap.

5. If making the halo stones larger (bringing them up to the 2.3mm mark) does not close the gap between those stones, fails to provide the scalloped look, or fails to reduce the gap between the center and the halo, then it may be necessary to decrease the size of the halo itself so that less metal is visible and the halo stones are bunched up closer together. No. Tell them to ignore this

Not quite sure why I would do this. I want to avoid seeing a significant amount of metal (other than the prongs holding the halo stones) when viewing the ring face-up. A good example of what I am trying to achieve is http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring7.JPG where the metal portion of the halo is only slightly visible.

6. The prongs holding the halo and the shank stones should be split prong (I know you’d mentioned that the last set of CADs simply failed to show that in the halo stones, however, not having a proper simulation makes it difficult for me to foresee the actual final design). Don't try to control this level. Your instruction makes no sense in jewelry making terms.

My original instructions were to have all the stones held with split prongs. As opposed to the first rendering, the second rendering showed the halo stones being held by shared prongs. This was more of a comment to make sure I do not get a shared prong design in the end.

7. Make the prongs holding the center stone less pointed and instead more rounded. That's a finishing detail, and has nothing to do with CADs. It's all handled by the stone setter.

Fair enough. This was an observation that I felt was worth pointing out so that I don't get a surprise when I have the finished product.

8. Add a little more metal on the bottom of the basket under the halos. Hopefully this can be better understood with reference to the following attached photos. If you refer to “ring4 (edited).jpg” you will see that I’ve indicated a certain thickness of metal that exists under the halo stones. This thickness if a lot less in the CAD view that you provided “YRC2 (edited).jpg”. I would like to add this layer of metal to provide a little bit of a thicker look to the basket. WHY? This doesn't make sense at all, sorry

Yes, this comment makes little sense without seeing the photos which I referenced. In the second rendering you will notice that the halo is very thin. This is somewhat different from the original photos which show a little more metal underneath. I am simply trying to come as close to the original design as possible and felt that the difference was quite noticeable. Here are the pics I referenced:
http://www.pictrace.com/i/YRC2 (edited).JPG
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring4 (edited).JPG

9. Lastly, I would also like to replicate what is shown in the original photo where the side of the halo rounds down into the underside of the basket in a in a soft fashion. This is pointed out in the “ring4 (edited2).jpg” file. I’ve also included both unedited photos for your convenience. Incorrect instruction. What you want is the halo angled about 25% away from the center stone. That's what you are seeing and trying to replicate. They probably had no idea what you meant which is why the CAD turned out the way it did.

Actually a direct instruction about angling the stone to a 20 degree angle was given after the first rendering, so the vendor was very aware of that particular aspect (another reason why I was surprised to see the final rendering having all the halo stones completely flat). Again, this comment may make a little more sense with the photo that was referenced.
http://www.pictrace.com/i/ring4 (edited 2).JPG
What I want to avoid is a sharp curve that I've seen in many other settings. So that is what I was pointing out, and I though that providing a photo pointing out the exact area that I am talking about would be pretty explanatory.

Just go back and tell them to eliminate the last round of CADs and go back to the second round. Then send them the above, with my edits and see what it gets you.

You accused me, in the other thread, of having only rudementary knowledge of patents and with playing armchair quarterback with it. Well, you are doing the same thing here. If you picked the right vendor, this is NOT a difficult design, you should trust them and not try to micromanage them with your very rudimentary knowledge.

It's natural for control freaks to do this. And I did the same thing with my first custom project. But it's counter productive. If I could I would upload my 14 page powerpoint presentation for my first project for you, so you could see.

Take a deep breath. Take a step back. And also... talking on the phone with vendors is a good thing sometimes. They can ask you questions back and say things like... "I'm not sure what you are asking, can you explain it to me a different way." Or re-state things for you so you can see if they understand it, or if they aren't getting it, and vice versa.

I never touted myself as knowing anything about jewelry, and that why I am here posting all my questions hoping to get feedback from those who know more about this process than me. And I don't think it's a matter of being a control freak and we've discussed the design by phone several time. My concern is that what I am seeing in the final drawings is a pretty far departure from the original photos, and hopefully my explanations above provide a little more context to the instructions that followed the second set.

sonnyjane · Oct 6, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

I agree with Gypsy. I think it would behoove you to contact them, apologize for your latest set of instructions being a bit confusing, and go forward with Gypsy's notes. As others have said, the CAD, other than being a little more bulky, should be a representation of exactly what you're going to see in the final version. If you're not happy at CAD, you won't be happy afterward.

ascari_2 · Oct 6, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Sonnyjane: I commented on Gypsy's post and put the instructions into a bit more perspective. To me, those are relatively clear. But if you still think they are confusing, knowing what I mentioned in my last post, then it is possible that I am not getting my point across to the vendor also.

sonnyjane · Oct 6, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

ascari_2|1349538696|3280562 said:
Sonnyjane: I commented on Gypsy's post and put the instructions into a bit more perspective. To me, those are relatively clear. But if you still think they are confusing, knowing what I mentioned in my last post, then it is possible that I am not getting my point across to the vendor also.

Yeah, I mean no disrespect at all, but even though you understand your directions and explained them to us and think they were clear to the vendor, if the email that you posted for us is indeed the email that you sent them directly, then it is definitely not as clear and concise as it should be. This needn't be about pride or who is right or what should be understood, it's about making sure your ring comes out the way you like. As Gypsy said, if the second round of CAD's was closest, then do as she suggested, tell them to go back to that one, and then re-write your thoughts using her suggestions.

They can do their best to make it look similar, but they also have to make sure that things are structurally sound which is where it sounds like some of the disconnects are in your communication with them.

Also, there does come a point where you were probably better off buying the original setting than having it be custom! Hopefully they can get you as close as possible.

Gypsy · Oct 7, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

sonnyjane|1349539366|3280565 said:
Yeah, I mean no disrespect at all, but even though you understand your directions and explained them to us and think they were clear to the vendor, if the email that you posted for us is indeed the email that you sent them directly, then it is definitely not as clear and concise as it should be. This needn't be about pride or who is right or what should be understood, it's about making sure your ring comes out the way you like. As Gypsy said, if the second round of CAD's was closest, then do as she suggested, tell them to go back to that one, and then re-write your thoughts using her suggestions.

They can do their best to make it look similar, but they also have to make sure that things are structurally sound which is where it sounds like some of the disconnects are in your communication with them.

Also, there does come a point where you were probably better off buying the original setting than having it be custom! Hopefully they can get you as close as possible.

This. Exactly this.

ascari_2 · Oct 7, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

Gypsy|1349586837|3280870 said:
This. Exactly this.

Somehow I just don't see how being so explicit with certain details makes things less clear. Guess this is why I am an engineer and not an artist.

Sonnyjane: this has absolutely nothing to do with pride. All I am trying to do is bring the design as close as possible to another design. When I compared the second set of renderings to the original photos, I saw a number of differences which I pointed out. The vendor was already aware of which design I want to replicate and a few other design aspects, such as the halo stone angles and their size. I invited the vendor to discuss my comments over a phone but they didn't feel that was necessary. Now I have yet to speak with them (regarding the latest round), which I will be doing early next week, but my reason for this post was to find out how close a final design will come to what I see in the renderings. From what I gather so far, it's pretty close, and for this reason this latest set won't do.

Gypsy · Oct 7, 2012

Re: How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final produ

ascari_2|1349587517|3280873 said:
Gypsy|1349586837|3280870 said:

This. Exactly this.

Click to expand...

Somehow I just don't see how being so explicit with certain details makes things less clear. Guess this is why I am an engineer and not an artist.

You are a lawyer. You understand the value of language.

Certain trades/industries have specific "languages"-- the jewelry trade is one of those. And sometimes in order to be able to clearly communicate to people, particularly about design concepts, not having insight into that 'language' is a huge detriment. And even though you are using english, and they are too-- because you are not using the specific subset of language and the specific terminology that they are used to describing things-- you may think you are being perfectly clear, while really you are being perfectly foggy.

I'll give you an example.
I didn't understand but the bare minimum about pave when I was getting my first halo.
What I wanted, but did not know how to ask for was v-cut pave. And what I did NOT want is brightcut. Didn't know that word for that either.
Now to me when I said I want pave like the HW halo (attach HW halo picture) and no not want pave like this (insert Ritani halo picture) where there is "a line of metal visible' at the outside edge. I was being PERFECTLY CLEAR. But for HER-- she doesn't think of brightcut as " that pave like the Ritani halo with the metal at the outside edge"-- so she has to GUESS what I mean. And she guessed wrong. And since she had never seen IN PERSON a Harry Winston Halo she had no idea that it was v-cut pave that I was asking for.

Well, i ended up with a bright cut halo. My designer said, "but you didn't say you don't want bright cut" and I said "I didn't know what it was called, but I gave you a picture of a brightcut halo and said-- I don't want this." She re-made it.

Now having been on these boards since 2005. And having done several custom projects. And having helped many others with their projects. I know enough of that lingo to be able to get my thoughts across to vendors much more clearly. And THAT is why I am saying that even though your post was clear to you, because the terminology you are using to describe things is different than what they are used to, you may not be getting through to them. If you aren't using the right words, no matter HOW MUCH you say, you aren't going to get through. And talking more, using MORE wrong words, results in MORE confusion on their part. Which is how you ended up with the 3rd CAD rounds. They were confused and had no idea what you were asking for, they guessed and guessed wrong.

So you have to get on the phone with them and see if you can, through a back and forth exchange, get your ideas across and get their input back to you, so that you can be sure what you are saying is what they are hearing. And then AFTER you talk to them, come to resolution, you can follow it up with an email that recaps for both of your references.

About scalloped halo look you want. Try this image: https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/ring-in-box.jpg And USING PAINT CROP IT SO JUST THE HALO SHOWS and TYPE ONTO THE ACTUAL PICTURE IS A BOLD BRIGHT COLOR, DRAW AN ARROW POINTING to the scalloped edge and say... "this is how I am hoping the outside edge of the halo looks-- scalloped." So that they can see.

Also in your pictures, where there are two rings.... next time, just crop out (use paint it's easy) the one you don't want or just box it out in white (redact). Simplifies things.

DIAMOND CONCIERGE
SERVICE

JOIN OUR ONLINE
COMMUNITY

Search

How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final product

ascari_2

Shiny_Rock

Enerchi

Super_Ideal_Rock

yssie

Super_Ideal_Rock

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock

ascari_2

Shiny_Rock

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock

distracts

Ideal_Rock

ascari_2

Shiny_Rock

sonnyjane

Ideal_Rock

ascari_2

Shiny_Rock

sonnyjane

Ideal_Rock

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock

ascari_2

Shiny_Rock

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock

How close are the CADs supposed to be to the final product

Shiny_Rock

Sponsored By:

Related topics:

Super_Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Ideal_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock

Shiny_Rock

Super_Ideal_Rock