shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. PriceScope Upgrade Completed
    For issues, questions and comments click the link below
    https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pricescope-upgraded-comments-and-issues.229551/

    Dismiss Notice

I Need Help in Resetting my wife's engagement ring!!!

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by rgh333, May 11, 2012.

  1. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 11, 2012
    Hi everyone,
    I was on here a few years ago and got some great advice and I am needing some feedback now......

    I have decided to re-set my wife's engagement ring. She always has wanted a ring with a larger halo (more of the cluster look, not smaller melee), but I got her a solitaire with diamonds all around the band.

    Her center stone is a Radiant D color, 2.38 carats VS2, and is rectangular in shape.

    The halo will be comprised of 5 pointers surrounding the Radiant diamond. 2 or 3 round 1/4 carat stones will be on each side on the band.
    The stems taper in to the center of the top of the band, so that there is no lower basket. These 4 stems will be covered with micro-pave diamonds.

    I was hoping to have the halo set at an angle, but the jeweler said that the stones are too large to set angled without gaps. Given that my wife wants the larger stones, I'm fine with that.

    1. Do you think wrapping the edges with micro-pave or smaller stones, so as to avoid visible metal, is possible? I know same sized stones are impossible to wrap the halo with......I think??

    2. Also, any advice on the space between the stems and the first round stone on the band? Should it be moved up closer? Would 3 stones on each side of the halo be better than just 2 so it flows better?

    3. Should I have diamonds go all the way around, with 10 pointers continuing after the 25 pointers? Would such a graduation look nice?

    I just want this ring to sparkle (even if admittedly slightly gaudy, haha). Please help!

    Thank you very much!

    Ryan

    fung big top em.png
     
  2. mrssalvo
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,133
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    by mrssalvo » May 11, 2012
    Wow, you've got a lot going on with that ring. I personally wouldn't add any pave but you could add the .10's down the band.
     
  3. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 11, 2012
    Yes, there is a lot going on with the ring. So you think adding 10 pointers to the band will look good, following the larger stones?

    Do you think I should have the stones moved up a little closer to the stems, so there is less metal?
     
  4. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 11, 2012
    Yeah. WOW that's a lot. I'm going to suggest a few things. Don't add pave. I'd personally I think that style will be MUCH prettier and more comfortable if it had cathedral shank-- I'd change that right away. And the large1/4 carat rounds on either side of that halo, I personally would swap out for bullets, or shields. But if you want to stick rounds I'd do ONE 20 pointer on each side, followed by one ten pointer followed by one 5 pointer. That's it. Please, do not add pave to that, it's going to look like the pave are barnacles trying to take over a destroyer.
     
  5. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 11, 2012
    Ha! Point taken with the side pave, I will keep as is in the picture. I am not sure what you mean with the cathedral shank setting? Is that when the shank runs up to the side of the halo?
     
  6. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    49,936
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » May 11, 2012
    Whew, I am going to have to agree. Overkill. The 25 pointers on the shank need to go.
     
  7. hoover
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    351
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    by hoover » May 11, 2012
    I have nothing to add since i dont really have any style sense but i like Gypsy's suggestion of a cathedral shank. Plus, she just made me LOL with her description :mrgreen:


    Your wife is a very lucky lady ::)
     
  8. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 11, 2012
    YES. That's it exactly!

    Hoover 8) That's always what that looks like to me.
     
  9. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 11, 2012
    Thanks ladies, both for the feedback and for the laughs, too! :P


    I will make some adjustments, but in the end, it was what my wife wants. Happy wife, happy life!
     
  10. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 11, 2012



    This is true. Please post pictures of the updated CADs and the final ring. I'd be excited to see both.
     
  11. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 11, 2012
    Hi Ryan, looks like you have got some great advice from the experts here.

    The ring design looks very much Iike it was designed by a guy to me, it's blocky and mechanical looking, is this the look you were going for, if it is please disregard the rest of this post

    I really think you should have the halo diamonds angled like you originally wanted, this is doable and will not cause gaps. To make the angels work without gaps all you have to do is use slightly smaller diamonds for the four corner stones.
    Also if you look at the the side walls of your halo they are very straight and blocky, for me this would look much prettier if they were tapered inwards. (this will also reduce the heavy metal look)
    The other thing that really concerns me about the halo design is how exposed the corner stones are, if you look at where the shared prongs are they leave a huge part of the diamond exposed, the outside corners are one of the most at risk parts of a design like this so it would be easy to knock those stones out in my opinion.

    The diamonds in the band are far to big for my taste too, and yes three stones each side would be better than two and five each side would be even better!

    I like the idea of a cathedral band too, at the moment to me the halo is looking like a stuck on afterthought, a cathedral band would give it a more incorporated look. If you don't won't a cathedral band I think opening up the supporting stems closer to the shoulder diamonds would also give the halo a better planted look.

    Can I ask, are you working with a designer?
     
  12. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 11, 2012

    I have to agree with this 100%. I would tilt the halo (it will also give it less of a destroyer look) and work on swoopy lines and more fluidity and less rigidity.
     
  13. mrssalvo
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,133
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    by mrssalvo » May 12, 2012
    I agree, Mike's suggestions would be fantastic! Still a whole lot of big bling but in a much more fluid way!
     
  14. distracts
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,165
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    by distracts » May 12, 2012
    I agree with this. I didn't see why the diamonds couldn't be tilted but it helps to have a professional indicate that it can be done. I also like the idea of smaller corner diamonds so that it's not surrounded by a square - I think making the halo more rounded will make it look a lot better.

    I personally like the idea of a cathedral setting with the side diamonds running up to meet the halo diamonds.
     
  15. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    49,936
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » May 12, 2012
    You're getting advice from one of the greatest jewelry makers on earth, so please take note!
     
  16. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 12, 2012
    You were correct that the 25 pointers needed to go, but I think this might sound a little arrogant DS :lol:

    (Just incase my humor doesn't translate I am joking with DS)
     
  17. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 12, 2012
    You are all awesome! I am going to note these changes and show you the updates. The larger stones are staying on the band, though, but I will have 3 on each side.

    I am totally with you on using slightly smaller stones at the 4 corners to soften the halo. I, too, found it to bee to linear and cold.

    I will have the stems spaced a bit more and I am having a 5 pointer planted at the North/South (Front/Back) center where the stems meet at the top of the band, too. This will tie the halo together.

    My wife has a real aversion to the cathedral setting for her own ring, so that is not an option, but spacing the stems more is a great idea!

    Thank you all so much....(to be continued, haha)
     
  18. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 12, 2012
    Having three 25 pointers each side is going to make the band very thick in between the fingers, if you can you should have your Wife try on an eternity ring set all the way around with 25 pointers and see if the thickness bothers her, I find most people can't handle that kind of thickness.

    I'm not sure if your wife will also wear a band with this, sometimes people that want wider bands forget that they will be adding a band, you might be able to get better comfort by going with smaller diamonds in the band of this ring but then getting the wide chunky look I'm guessing your wife wants by adding a diamond band later on.

    Keep in mind also that the wider the band you go for on this ring, the smaller the center stone will look optically.
     
  19. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 12, 2012
    This forum rocks (no pun intended). I went to meet with the jeweler again today. I will receive a revised CAD drawing on Monday or Tuesday. The halo will be angled to about 20 degrees with smaller corner stones, which made the halo much prettier in the images I saw.

    The stems were spread more, so they come to less of a point and with a "surprise" 2 pointer added to where the stems join at the front at back (north/south facing).

    The stones were pushed higher so there is no awkward spacing between the stems and the 25 pointers. 3 stones on each side.

    I am going to get grief for this from many of you, but the halo stones are actually 10-11 pointers, not 5 pointers....This is noted in this above drawing, though, and again, what my wife wants and likes.

    We did try on 25 pointer rings, which did not bother my wife. As for her existing wedding band, that is an eternity band with 10-11 pointers but I am trading that in for 30+ pointers that go halfway around on the band. This ring will be worn on the ring hand, though. The new engagement ring re-set will be just too chunky to wear with another ring the same finger.

    I have to say the best part of this experience has been seeing my wife's excitement over this....I love making her happy!


    I will update with the new look when I get it. Thanks again for all the help everyone!
     
  20. mrssalvo
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,133
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    by mrssalvo » May 12, 2012
    I do hope you'll come back with pictures once it's complete. I'm sure I've never seen anything like it and I'm curious to see the finished piece. :))
     
  21. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 16, 2012
    Ok, so I just got the revised CAD from the designer. So, here it is! Please provide your feedback.

    Thank you

    Ryan

    fung big top em 2.png
     
  22. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 16, 2012
    The halo itself is much better. MUCH. Not looking like a destroyer anymore YAY! I love the tilt and Mike's suggestion with the smaller diamonds in the corners was just right. I'm personally not a fan of the band but that is what your wife specifically asked for so, that's fine. Although I would ask for one cad that shows those tapering down just to compare the look and see if you like it. 25-20-15 points just to see if it softens the looks a bit. If you and she don't like it, then you revert to this one.

    Hopefully Mike will be along with a few more helpful comments. I liked what he wrote about the underwires before maybe he can explain that a bit, or draw it out so you can see the difference it would make in the profile.
     
  23. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 16, 2012
    :appl: like Gypsy said, that's heaps better! I would say that's fine as is, so long as your wife loves it.

    For me personally I would still make a few changes...
    The halo from the top looks great, and the corner diamonds look more saftley set now, I can see why you put the v scallops under the diamonds to get rid of some metal, but I would have removed the metal a little differently.
    Personally I would have just made the halo plate that the diamonds are set in thinner, it would still be as strong as the halo in the new CAD but would be more simple and invisable looking, I'm worried that the scollops might look a little mechanicle and saw like. (also great care would be needed to get a good polish on that area of the casting if you stick with the scollops)

    The diamond you have added to the bottom of the stems won't let a band sit flush with this new design, but then I think you said your wife will be wearing her band on the other hand anyway.

    The only other major thing that I'm not really liking is the gap still between the large diamonds in the band and the stems supporting the halo. I like rings with good flow to them, if you follow the ring up from the bottom of the band it raises in hight for the diamonds and then steps down to a thinner wall thickness band again, I think that top green part of the band needs to be made atleast the same thickness as the bottom of the band, and maybe even a little thicker. I would also slightly space the stems further apart a little more too, I think by doing those two things you will get better visual flow to the piece and the halo and band will look like they were made to go with each other.
     
  24. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 16, 2012
    Mike and Gypsy, thanks again for the much appreciated feedback and suggestions. I am not sure what that halo plate is that might be an alternative, though? I have no idea what that would even look like (pardon my ignorance)?

    With the flow of the ring, do you mean the width of the band metal itself? I didn't want this band to taper in thickness, does it appear to do so? I just figured the angles make it look as such, but I could be wrong....

    How much wider should I spread the center stems? Yes that bezel-set diamond on the front and back of the ring will not allow for another ring to be worn, but I think my wife's finger will have enough going on with this setting, haha. A wedding band will go on her right hand instead.
     
  25. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 16, 2012
    Okay so part of what Mike is saying is you see on the profile shot of the ring where the open circle is facing us? The stems under the halo come down to a V on the shank. But then that part of the shank is much lower than the setting of the 25 pointers? That area is going to collect a lot of yucky stuff. Hand lotion lint, you name it. What he is saying is that the shank there needs to be bought up to the height of the 25 pointers. And honestly I would do a half bezel on the end there to the 25 pointers. This is what I mean: http://www.michaelcfina.com/engagement-wedding-rings/wedding-bands/a-jaffe-18k-white-gold-5-stone-diamond-band-MR1083.html??? See the ends of that band how the shank goes up to meet the first stone so the first stone and it's prongs are just sticking straight up out of the shank. See here where the first stone sticks up from the shank instead: http://www.michaelcfina.com/engagement-wedding-rings/wedding-bands/a-jaffe-18k-white-gold-5-stone-diamond-band-MRS015100.html??? He's saying that the undergallery shank width should be raised so that it meets those 25 pointers in terms of height.

    I understand what he means about the halo plate, but can't explain it. Maybe he'll draw up us a picture?
     
  26. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 17, 2012
    Everything I'm talking about is in regards to the profile view, bottom left.

    The halo plate is the halo, sorry I called it a halo plate because when I handmake rings like this I would cut that piece out of a small plate/sheet of metal.

    Me personally, I'm not liking the v shaped scallops on the side of the halo, under each diamond, for me this new detail looks distracting and gear/mechanical looking, I much preferred the simple/clean line of the first cad.
    I do think the thickness of the halo plate on the first cad is too thick though, I would reduce the wall thickness of the original halo by about 1/4
    The taper to the sidewalls on the new cad is good, keep that.

    I'm curios, I can't really make it out in the cad, are the diamonds in the halo set at a slight angle so that they give a slight beveled look to the design, if they aren't I really think they should be, halos can look flat without this detail.
     Hopefully Gypsy can find you a picture of this sort of detail.

    The flow is just a visual thing, again looking just at the profile picture, I find things look correct when the wall thickness of metal starts out thinner at the bottom and then either steps up or gradually flows up to the center feature, it's just a nice journey visually.
    Your design starts out thin then thick then thin again, for me personally it looks a little awkward and unnatural, that's why I suggested what I did above.

    I could be wrong, I'm not a cad expert, but I believe your cad is showing a taper in both wall thickness and width of the band, if you don't want that you should clarify that detail with your cad'er. Personally I would keep the slight taper to the wall thickness, you can do what you want with the width.

    I think if you increase the wall thickness of the green part of the band between each blue setting part you might not have to spread the stems very much at all, maybe just 1mm each side.

    These are just my suggestions, if you like the look of the new cad go for it.
     
  27. rgh333
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    36
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    by rgh333 » May 17, 2012
    I will for sure note those changes. Would "U" shaped scoops look better than "V" shaped scoops? I like the scooping as I reveals more of the diamond, but maybe a thinner halo plate would achieve the same effect, along with minimal metal.

    I will have the green upper portion of the ring increases in thickness so it is the same as the surrounding blue (where the round diamonds begin). I like that this will raise the setting higher, too, and allow for the stems to be much closer to where the stones begin on the upper portion of the band.

    I like the addition of the stone at the center.

    I agree this is far less blocky than the original CAD, that was an extremely rough draft!
     
  28. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 17, 2012
    Yes I think U shaped scoops would be better but I think having it just flat like the first cad (but with thinner metal) is better still, with the size stones in the halo and everything else I really do think simple in this area is best.
    Also having it straight (without any scoops) matches the settings on the band better, giving the piece a more cohesive look.

    I had I little chuckle to myself about your last comment, I'm glad you can see it, the first design is the type of cad design I have nightmares about. I have been extremely busy these last few weeks because I'm leaving the country tommorow for 3 weeks but I just had to try and help out a little,it makes me happy that the original design will never be a reality. :mrgreen:

    Congrats to you both.
     
  29. Gypsy
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    40,198
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    by Gypsy » May 17, 2012
    I couldn't find a pic of a large cluster halo like that with the stones tilted. BUT I do have this pic:

    Have them tilt that halo 20 degrees away from the center it will be a much lovelier look.

    Halo Tilt.jpg
     
  30. Mike R
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    by Mike R » May 17, 2012
    Great picture Gypsy, I knew you could find something.

    You might not need a 20 degree tilt with the bigger halo diamonds, I normally just get the angle by what looks good to my eye, but Im guesssing it might be closer to 10 degrees with the lager halo diamonds.
     

Share This Page