shape
carat
color
clarity

Melle 3 Row Bombay Setting CAD Feedback Please

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by Strawberries1, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. Strawberries1
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    119
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    by Strawberries1 » Jul 17, 2019
    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
     
    


    


  2. tyty333
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    20,633
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    by tyty333 » Jul 18, 2019
    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?
     
  3. msop04
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,292
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    by msop04 » Jul 18, 2019
    Agree on all... esp the 9.24 mm being much too high.
     
  4. Strawberries1
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    119
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    by Strawberries1 » Jul 18, 2019
    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.
     
    


    


  5. molecule
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    by molecule » Jul 18, 2019
    I'm not a huge fan of the prongs themselves- too reminiscent of peg heads.
     
  6. Strawberries1
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    119
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    by Strawberries1 » Jul 23, 2019
    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
     
  7. oldminer
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    6,293
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2000
    by oldminer » Jul 24, 2019
    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.
     

Share This Page