Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Melle 3 Row Bombay Setting CAD Feedback Please

Strawberries1

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
120
Hi all,

I'm getting a Cathedral setting 3 row engagement ring and wedding band made. I've attached the CAD here for your comments please.

I'll like the ring 2.80 - 2.85 finished width not 2.74mm. Taper from 2.80/2.85 to 2.60/2.65.

Height/thickness shows 1.80. Is this ok? I do like my rings feeling somewhat substantial and I wonder if this isn't too thin for a bombay ie 3 row pave setting.
Center stone dimension is 8 x 5.7mm oval from August Vintage.
Surely 9.24 is to high for the centre? Max should be 7mm high and minimum of 6mm; is this best? It's my first time commissioning a ring so I'll be most grateful for or kind and considered imput.

Below are rings similar to what I want.

I also want stones up the prongs.

Thanks!

Please see below

This cathedral V setting is closest to what I want, 3 row pave with the centre row a little larger than than the 2 rows parallel. Diamonds on under bridge and diamonds on prongs which are not shown here. Cathedral Micro Pave Shane and Co.jpg

CAD Jafar.jpg Bombay.jpg
Screenshot_20190619-111745.png Simon G taper D.png TR431_WHITE_18K_SET Bombay set.png Wedding Ring CAD.jpg
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
21,184
My shank is 1.6mm deep and I find it quite sturdy. I think 1.8mm would be fine (sturdy) although you could go deeper (2mm) since you
have 3 sided pave. You could ask them what it would look like. Yours may not be that easy to change since you have pave. 9.24 is definitely
too high IMO. I would ask them to lower it. I'm confused about why you are showing 2 different CADs. Is the first one your CAD and if so why
isnt it showing an oval?
 

msop04

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
9,528
My shank is 1.6mm deep and I find it quite sturdy. I think 1.8mm would be fine (sturdy) although you could go deeper (2mm) since you
have 3 sided pave. You could ask them what it would look like. Yours may not be that easy to change since you have pave. 9.24 is definitely
too high IMO. I would ask them to lower it. I'm confused about why you are showing 2 different CADs. Is the first one your CAD and if so why
isnt it showing an oval?
Agree on all... esp the 9.24 mm being much too high.
 

Strawberries1

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
120
Thanks ever so much!
The bottom CAD ie the one on the grey background is not for this project. I don't know how to edit my post to remove it.

I've asked him to change my CAD to an oval and reduce the height.
 

Strawberries1

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
120
I'm back with revised CAD.
I'd said no tapering of shank, so just let the cathedral raise normally.
Prongs to be more tiger?
7.19mm height ok?
Would appreciate your feedback please. CAD Jafar 2.jpeg
 

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,335
There is no harm in carefully planning what you want. I'd suggest that from my experience the diamonds in the prongs will not be much visible, but they will force the prongs to be quite a bit more prominent and chunky than what would be adequate if they were somewhat minimized and not set with diamonds. The drilling and the width required to make the diamond secure forces you to accept bumpy, prominent prong wires and makes tightening the diamond a very delicate procedure so small stones won't pop out. I'd suggest for your benefit and knowledge you look at the relative difference without diamonds in the prongs. Use thinner and shallower prongs in the CAD, not the identical prongs un-drilled. Choose what you prefer, but look and be sure. The shank and connector underneath look really nice on these styles.
 

Strawberries1

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
120
There is no harm in carefully planning what you want. I'd suggest that from my experience the diamonds in the prongs will not be much visible, but they will force the prongs to be quite a bit more prominent and chunky than what would be adequate if they were somewhat minimized and not set with diamonds. The drilling and the width required to make the diamond secure forces you to accept bumpy, prominent prong wires and makes tightening the diamond a very delicate procedure so small stones won't pop out. I'd suggest for your benefit and knowledge you look at the relative difference without diamonds in the prongs. Use thinner and shallower prongs in the CAD, not the identical prongs un-drilled. Choose what you prefer, but look and be sure. The shank and connector underneath look really nice on these styles.
Thanks so much Oldminer.
We got the rings made and got married in October. We feel truly blessed. Back from honeymoon so now I'm posting photos.

It turned out nice and sparkly. I wondered whether to lower the settings and narrow the prongs. Hubby and jeweller say it's fine as is.
What do you think?
Thanks again. IMG_20191206_033932.jpg IMG_20191206_034013.jpg IMG_20191206_033932.jpg 15756042617536213137721474974677.jpg 1575604294153831844021210386175.jpg 15756043461975065830224733036754.jpg IMG_20191206_034013.jpg
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top