My CAD images are in!

[kathleenmv]

Hey everyone!

The CAD images for my three-stone upgrade/switcheroo are in, so I thought I''d share them to see what y''all thought.

I''m using fishtail (aka triple bead) prongs a la Selkie''s ring to give it a vintage look and make the stones look a bit square. I also wanted something interesting in the gallery, so the jeweler/designer used a bit of pave and a surprise stone.

Anywho...that''s the scoop. Take a peek and see whatcha think!

Thanks!!

 

[kathleenmv]

another image...

 

[kathleenmv]

last one (man, I really need to learn how to post more than one image at a time!)

 

[monarch64]

WOW. That is absolutely gorgeous!

 

[Love in Bloom]

Holy smokes, K

. That design looks fantastic

! Thanks for sharing; the whole design process is so cool to see

 

[musey]

Beautiful beautiful!! Can''t wait to see the finished product!

 

[snlee]

It looks lovely! I can''t wait to see the finished product!

 

[Maisie]

Oh my! That is an amazing ring!!

 

[Roz]

Woah! Are you telling me that was done in CAD? That it''s really not a picture of a ring? I''m blown away (not to mention it''s a lovely ring!).

Wow I really should try using CAD :p

 

[kathleenmv]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone! I like it, too.

There''s one element I''m not too sure about, though: the circles underneath the side stones. I know they''re supposed to provide continuity with the surprise diamond under the center, but I wonder if it looks like something''s missing there. Anyone care to weigh in?

I really appreciate the feedback everyone''s been offering. I''ve never gone custom before, and I''m pretty nervous!

 

[Diamond*Dana]

Wow, that is gorgeous!

I see what you mean about the side stone circles, and I have mixed feelings about them. Hmmm...they don't look bad by any means, but it does look like there should be a stone there...then again, I am not sure if I would like the look of more stone there!

 

[Jenn5504]

Wow, that is just AMAZING that those are CAD images! Very lovely ring! I thought the exact thing you are questioning while I was looking at the images..........looks like something is missing in those "holes" under the sidestones.

 

[MWG]

Date: 6/24/2007 9:31:44 AM
Author: kathleenmv
Thanks for the kind words, everyone! I like it, too.

There''s one element I''m not too sure about, though: the circles underneath the side stones. I know they''re supposed to provide continuity with the surprise diamond under the center, but I wonder if it looks like something''s missing there. Anyone care to weigh in?

I really appreciate the feedback everyone''s been offering. I''ve never gone custom before, and I''m pretty nervous!

Personally, I would consider putting diamond melees in those holes. Those holes will collect dirt if not covered.

Another thought...... you could put birthstones of people you love in the holes.....Just a thought.

Also, how about putting diamond melees on the side bars underneath the side stones, just like the middle side bar.....Just a thought....


It is going to be a gorgeous ring either way you go........*S*

Who is making this ring?

 

[jaz464]

Hmm, I am not loving the empty holes either. I am not sure what the solution is though. I guess if it was between empty holes and more surprise diamonds, I would go with the latter.

Can you tell us how the prongs will be? I am not loving the two bars of metal that come up on each corner of the diamonds. They look kind of like spaghetti noodles to me.

 

[iheartscience]

It looks gorgeous! I would have the jeweler put diamonds in the empty circles for sure, though.

 

[snlee]

I agree, I would have the jeweler put diamonds in the empty circles.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would also have little diamonds set in the holes. CAD''s are always a little hard for me to interpret, but I feel like maybe the stones are set a little too high. I''d probably ask for them to be set a little lower, if it was mine. It is a lovely design, though!

 

[kathleenmv]

Thanks for the feedback--and the affirmation. I''m glad I''m not the only one who thought the side stone hole thingies looked a little strange.

I thought about doing little surprise diamonds under the side stones, but I''m afraid that''ll blow right through my budget.

MWG, I like the idea of doing pave/melee under the side stones in addition to under the center one. I actually asked about that in the early stages of design discussion and the jeweler was concerned that there wouldn''t be room. Seems like I''ve seen rings like that before, though. Maybe I''ll ask again (although not 100% sure it''d be in my somewhat strained budget).

Jazmine, the prongs are fishtail a la Cross Jewelers'' Olympian, which is very similar to Selkie''s triple Victory ring (also from Cross).
Selkie''s ring: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/victory-my-sapphire-3-stone-ering.46111/page-2
Olympian: http://crossstylebook.com/oly.htm

Is the spaghetti look you''re referring to from the side view? I agree, they look a little...large or severe or something. And I don''t know how these renderings compare to real life.

DiamondSeeker, thanks for the input. I kinda wondered about the height, too. I''m not over-fond of super low-profile, but I don''t want it sky-high either. Is there a rule of thumb (or finger, in this case) for height?

THANKS to everyone for looking/responding. I don''t feel like I''m in my target heart zone anymore.

OH, PS...Knox Jewelers is making the ring and the center stone is an incredible 1.23 H&A from GOG.

 

[Skippy123]

Holy Guacamole that is BEAUTIFUL!!!! Can''t wait to see the real life setting!!

 

[Lynn B]

OHMYDEARHEAVENSABOVE!!!

I''m telling you, I gotta quit hanging around here! All you guys with these KILLER solitaires... and now these TO-DIE-FOR 3-stones... it just ain''t GOOD for a diamond-obsessed girl like me!!!

Kathleen, that ring is AMAZING! I LOVE it! Thank you for sharing!

It is definitely gorgeous and perfect as is. But since we are hair-splitters-and-proud-of-it around here

, I do agree with DS... I''d DEFINITELY get little diamonds in the other (empty) circles (and be sure to ask for super sparkly full-cut baby melee!

)... and I would also try to have the 3 main stones set a little lower. But other than that, dang girl, it''s a super stunner finger blinger and (*insert whiny voice here*) I WANT ONE, TOO!!!!

PS What are the sizes of your side stones? Thanks!

 

[angeline]

I think it''s absolutely gorgeous!!! I would skip the side holes but put pave on the side bars if at all possible. Lucky you, can''t wait to see the finished product!!

a

 

[jcrow]

for the profile, i would match the center with the sides. surprise diamonds &&&& pave the side bar piece. i think that would be the most congruent.

love the ring!! i love the 3 prongs & how the shank swoops up to meet the diamonds. wonderful details!

 

[kathleenmv]

Thanks Skippy, Lynn and Angeline! You ladies are so sweet!!

Lynn, thanks so much for the compliment! I''ve been coveting (okay, stalking) your ring for some time now, so your kind words really boost my confidence. The side stones are .41 ACAs, and all three stones are I/SI1.

Sounds like everyone''s in agreement about the side holes. They look lonely! I''m going to a) put surprise diamonds there b) skip the surprise diamonds on the sides and put pave instead or c) skip surprise diamonds/holes/pave/whatnot on the sides and just have doodads under the middle stone.

Angeline, for the side stones, are you thinking pave at the top of basket (i.e. just like what the center stone has)? Just making sure I''m on the same page there.

And what''s the verdict on the side view of the prongs? I think I see what Jazmine is talking about. Is that just render funkiness that will look fine in real life? Or is that something I should address/change now--and if so, any idears? I don''t want pasta prongs.

THANKS, ALL!

 

[kathleenmv]

Hi JCrow!

We must''ve been posting at the same time.

I like the idea of having surprise diamonds/pave under each stone. Knox Jewelers thought all wouldn''t fit under the side stones, though. Dangit!

Do you think it''d be weird to have the surprise/pave under the center and not the sides? Knox actually has a three stone that does just that, and it seems okayish:

http://www.knoxjewelers.biz/index.htm?crn=213&rn=1096&action=show_detail

Thoughts?

 

[iheartscience]

I think that one looks okay because it doesn''t have the bars at all. I don''t mind the bars but I''d want all three to have pave if possible! Maybe have them do pave on all three bars and get rid of the diamondless circles?

 

[angeline]

Date: 6/24/2007 5:55:55 PM
Author: kathleenmv
Thanks Skippy, Lynn and Angeline! You ladies are so sweet!!


Lynn, thanks so much for the compliment! I''ve been coveting (okay, stalking) your ring for some time now, so your kind words really boost my confidence. The side stones are .41 ACAs, and all three stones are I/SI1.


Sounds like everyone''s in agreement about the side holes. They look lonely! I''m going to a) put surprise diamonds there b) skip the surprise diamonds on the sides and put pave instead or c) skip surprise diamonds/holes/pave/whatnot on the sides and just have doodads under the middle stone.


Angeline, for the side stones, are you thinking pave at the top of basket (i.e. just like what the center stone has)? Just making sure I''m on the same page there.


And what''s the verdict on the side view of the prongs? I think I see what Jazmine is talking about. Is that just render funkiness that will look fine in real life? Or is that something I should address/change now--and if so, any idears? I don''t want pasta prongs.


THANKS, ALL!

Yes that''s right. If you can afford it, the surprise diamonds and pave on all three might look good - or it might look a bit much. I really like the other KNox you linked to , the side view of the side diamonds is yummy! But in that case I would have the center bare as well. Oh dear I''m not really helping much.

I think I stand by my original suggestion. Keep your center as it but just pave the little bar around the diamond like in the center if possible.

Good luck, it''s hard making these decisions!

a

 

[Lynn B]

I see what Jazmine is saying about the "spaghetti" look of the 2 prongs side-by-side, and I think that is a total result of the CAD and the static image. I''ve seen rings like that IRL and you don''t see "2" prongs, you see all 3... and the huge magnification of the CADs really distort that, making the prongs look larger than life. In reality, they will likely be very thin and delicate... and again, in groups of "3". I LOVE it and wouldn''t change it!

 

[kathleenmv]

Thanks, Thing2of2, Angeline and Lynn!

Angeline, you''re right; all of these decisions are haaaaaaaaaaaaaard. It''s a fun kind of hard, but still a little stressful.

I think I''ll go with the suggestion of just doing pave on the baskets and forgoing the center surprise diamond--or at least I''ll ask about it. If that''s out of my wee ballpark, I''ll change the basket/bars on the side stones, lose those fun-kay circles and keep the embellishment under just the center stone a la that last Knox link I posted. Whew! I almost made a decision!

Thanks for the prong thoughts, Lynn. I am definitely hoping it''s just the super-close-up of the rendering. I looked back at Selkie''s ring (have I mentioned how much I love it??) and I think her prongs were similiar in idea and look delicate, beautiful and all-around perfect. I think I''ll mention it to Brian, though, just so he knows how important pretty/delicate prongs are to me.

Thanks again for all of the feedback/help. I''ll probably be posting revised renderings soon.

 

[kathleenmv]

Hi! Me again.

Soooooooooooo...putting pave on all three baskets is out of my wee budget. (And I really want to hold firm to my setting budget as I went a little higher than I originally planned on my diamond budget. Whoopsie!)

That being said, I could have the side stone baskets just be simple and plain while keeping the pave/surprise under the center diamond:

 

[Shay37]

Yes, much better. I like the symmetry of this one better.

shay