Need help with Prongs and CAD (Experts where are you)

[ShoppingForARing]

I need feedback on the below CAD drawings. I want thinner prongs or am I ok. The look I am trying to achieve is also below. I have a 2 ct. cushion center diamond.


Look I am trying to achieve without the diamonds on the prongs and without the rail:

 

[ShoppingForARing]

Help is appreciated!

 

[rockysalamander]

I think there is a difference in how the prongs attached to the shank. In your inspo, they carved out a notch in the top of the shank to allow the prongs to swoop out from "within" the shank. That allows a wedding band to fit flush. Again, the notch is in the shank, then the prongs slide into that slot. You don't want to notch the bottom of the prong. That notch is also used in Tiffany's settings (see below).




Here is a good Tiffany replica. These prongs show how they can be in a notch and that allows for the prongs to be more flush with the setting.

The shanks on these rings are different. The inspo is bead-set pave. Which sets the tiny diamonds between two metal sides. That was changed to open pave. For open pave, the shank should be no narrower than 1.8 mm (2.0 mm better). For 1.8, you need to be confident that the maker can make the prongs sturdy enough.

While thin prongs are in, and I think these can be thinned in the final finishing, do be mindful of the structure. 6-prongs is less secure for a diamond as the bending or failure of 1 prong leads to the loss of the diamond. So, while you don't want them beefy, you want enough metal.

This brings me to the removal of the pave bar. The crossbar is a feature that can allow them to think the prongs and provided more structural support to the head. It does not have to be pave, although I happen to like that feature quite a bit. It makes this design more unique. For me, I'd add back the pave swoop/crossbar.

These are double swoops, but this shows both pave (more delicate) and a plain one to give you some additional visuals.