OEC vintage-inspired e-ring CAD feedback help

[dropsonde]

Would appreciate any thoughts or feedback about the design CADs for a vintage-inspired OEC engagement ring I'm having made before I give final approval. The key design change is modifying it from a four-prong to six-prong.

I'm including photos of the inspiration ring for reference -- it's an OMC with rose-cut melees.

A couple of notes. The swoops on the basket will be detailed after casting to be more delicate. The fluting on the band is missing so that change is already being made.

Any other comments would be appreciated!




Inspiration vintage ring:

 

[Lookinagain]

I think the cathedral on the inspiration has a bit of slope up to the basket (very slight) while the one on the CAD looks totally straight. The pictures have some reflection off the metal so I'm not sure if I'm seeing it right. And the donut on the inspiration seems to be smaller than on the CAD.

 

[foxinsox]

The inspiration prongs look like they're the ends of the swoops which meld into a prong that's attached into the donut as well as having other small struts supporting the swoops whereas the CAD prongs come directly up from the donut and the swoops hang between the prongs without any visual integration - is that change what you requested alongside increasing the number of prongs? It doesn't look bad but it does change the look quite noticeably from the inspiration.
The right hand arm of the cathedral in the inspiration looks like it has a tiny curve up to the basket but the left hand side doesn't. Your CADs look like they're like the left hand side (it's hard to tell cos they're not side on).

 

[rockysalamander]

I agree with PP. The prongs and head don't seem to match the inspiration. There should be a continuous curve, so they look like garland drapes. While a bit different, the prongs on the CADs below show more of the curve and swoop you want to see in a CAD. The swoop should stand out, not the prongs. Also, the prongs on your inspiration are narrow at the base and become thicker where it spilits into two.

Prongs showing V shape. In the inspo, the swoop come behind the prong and the respective side of the prong essentially completes the swoop.


TGP Ring


CVB Ring Showing nice swoopy prongs.


Maybe it is just me, but there is something about the shoulder to stone proportion that is off. I think the shoulder of the inspiration looks to be wider relative to the stone than your CAD. Maybe the side stones are bigger? Maybe someone else can spot what is bugging me...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I love the inspriation ring, but I honestly don't think your jeweler has captured the style of the Cartier ring well at all (agree with comments above). I truly love the prong orientation on the original. I'd also make the tab prongs smaller.

 

[Niel]

The donut is too wide. I've attached an image to explain what I mean but the ratio of the original shows the donut a fair amount smaller than the mm size of the diamond where their cad it looks relatively the same size.


The basket details look less like swoopy bars and more like drapped flags over a banister for the 4th of July. That aspect is all wrong.

Obviously the prongs are different. Which you very well mat have requested more prongs but the nsew aspect of the prongs effects the overall design of the basket details

The shank needs to have a curve in it, as others have said.

The shank also needs to taper slightly as it goes away from the head.

Is he even going to add those lines in the donut and the shank?

I think it's glaringly obvious the difference to the point I think the person who designed these cads isn't taking the time they should take to recreate this. I saw your cads before I saw the picture you of the ring you were copying. I'm actually familiar with that ring already and I had no idea at all this was the ring you were copying. I might suggest using a different jeweler

 

[Niel]

They didn't take the time to study the design. Evident by how they didn't really even see how the shank design works. They may have just added the millgrain for effect in the cad( I hope so as it look cheap when millgrian is cast) but like, that doesn't have millgrian at the end and it's not squared off it melds into the shank

 

[Katesimone]

I think the CADs look very clunky and lack any of the finesse of the inspiration ring. I don't know if the jeweller has rushed the design and missed some details or if it's just poor workmanship, but either way I would be seriously rethinking using this jeweller (especially if you haven't used them before). I would worry that the finished product won't look much like the inspiration ring at all (for reasons other commenters have pointed out).

The inspiration ring is stunning!

 

[rockysalamander]

One other thought, although really about the finishing. Part of what makes that ring so lovely is the softened edges and soft patina. You might ask the maker to soften the edges of your ring and add a soft satin finish (unless you love high shine). This will help capture the texture and feeling of the ring at the end and make it feel like an older piece of art.

 

[dropsonde]

I appreciate the feedback from everyone! The devil is in the details so the detailed observations are appreciated. They've been helpful. You guys caught a couple of things I missed: the fluting around the bottom of the donut (I had already given feedback to the jeweler about the fluting on the shank) and the slight curve of the shank as it approaches the head. The shank will also be slightly tapered as it moves away from the head as it is in the inspiration but there was concern that the tapering was too aggressive and might be too thin at the bottom so the taper will be more gentle. I believe that was going to be addressed in the finishing.

A design clarification in case it was missed in my original post. I did ask for the change from the four prong in the inspiration to a six prong. I asked for the change because my OEC has a very thin girdle and PSers recommended this extra protection to me in an earlier thread (DS had even recommended an eight prong or bezel). The version I had started to post two weeks ago was an eight prong design. I adore the inspiration's four prong design and alignment and would have kept it otherwise. The

Re: rockysalamander's comments about the proportions, let me offer this information. The inspiration ring has a 1.6 ct stone and is size 6.25. My design has a 2.04 ct and is size 4.5. Perhaps the combination of the larger stone and smaller ring size is making the proportions look off. I am curious if the design can be tweaked to get the proportions back closer to the inspiration or if the differences in stone and ring size create limitations.

Niel had commented about the difference between cast millgrian and hand-finished millgrian. Can someone help me understand this difference, i.e., why hand-finished gives a better result? Thanks for your other detailed observations, Niel.

My fear for this project from the beginning is that the spirit of the inspiration would be lost by moving from four to six prong. I was hoping that challenge could be overcome through thoughtful design. I wonder if this challenge as well as stone/ring size differences are too difficult to overcome. Or can the designer take more care to deliver a design closer in spirit? Or is it a combination of both, i.e., this design can be improved but ultimately it will be pale in comparison to the inspiration due to limits? Feedback would be welcome. As mentioned in my original post, the jeweler did caution that additional work would be done by hand on the swoops post-casting but if the design foundation is off there may be limits on what finishing can change.

 

[Niel]

Good to know this cad is just how the metal will be cast and they would do additional work after. Can they provide you with a drawing or some renderings of what the finished product would look like?

Here is an example of hand vs cad millgrain

 

[rockysalamander]

I appreciate the feedback from everyone! The devil is in the details so the detailed observations are appreciated. They've been helpful. You guys caught a couple of things I missed: the fluting around the bottom of the donut (I had already given feedback to the jeweler about the fluting on the shank) and the slight curve of the shank as it approaches the head. The shank will also be slightly tapered as it moves away from the head as it is in the inspiration but there was concern that the tapering was too aggressive and might be too thin at the bottom so the taper will be more gentle. I believe that was going to be addressed in the finishing.

A design clarification in case it was missed in my original post. I did ask for the change from the four prong in the inspiration to a six prong. I asked for the change because my OEC has a very thin girdle and PSers recommended this extra protection to me in an earlier thread (DS had even recommended an eight prong or bezel). The version I had started to post two weeks ago was an eight prong design. I adore the inspiration's four prong design and alignment and would have kept it otherwise. The

Re: rockysalamander's comments about the proportions, let me offer this information. The inspiration ring has a 1.6 ct stone and is size 6.25. My design has a 2.04 ct and is size 4.5. Perhaps the combination of the larger stone and smaller ring size is making the proportions look off. I am curious if the design can be tweaked to get the proportions back closer to the inspiration or if the differences in stone and ring size create limitations.

Niel had commented about the difference between cast millgrian and hand-finished millgrian. Can someone help me understand this difference, i.e., why hand-finished gives a better result? Thanks for your other detailed observations, Niel.

My fear for this project from the beginning is that the spirit of the inspiration would be lost by moving from four to six prong. I was hoping that challenge could be overcome through thoughtful design. I wonder if this challenge as well as stone/ring size differences are too difficult to overcome. Or can the designer take more care to deliver a design closer in spirit? Or is it a combination of both, i.e., this design can be improved but ultimately it will be pale in comparison to the inspiration due to limits? Feedback would be welcome. As mentioned in my original post, the jeweler did caution that additional work would be done by hand on the swoops post-casting but if the design foundation is off there may be limits on what finishing can change.

Its a first CAD. My ring took 3. I do think the designed took an existing model and then tried to apply some of the details. My fear from the CAD is that they simply won't have the materials (especially in the swoops) to finish it as you want. The CAD should just look like a chubbier version of your ring. To fix the proportions, I think you need to wider the shoulder a bit.

I think they design can be captured and include 6-prongs. Even with your larger stone, double six prongs might be a bit much...but that is personal taste. You could resolve this by moving toward the CAD where the center prong floats. This is helpful as that prong that is above a wedding band fitting flush (kinda an obsession of mine). But, I think this head would work for your ring with some slimming down of the swoops. The donut here is bigger, like the inspiration, but could be smaller like the CVB by angling the bottom of the swoop more inward.
The Cartier also has more squared-off and less rounded swoops.





All told, I give you franken ring!


https://erstwhilejewelry.com/collec...t-edwardian-diamond-solitaire-engagement-ring

More like the Cartier swoops
https://erstwhilejewelry.com/collec.../edwardian-1-03-carat-diamond-engagement-ring

 

[dropsonde]

rockysalamander: Ha -- nice work on the Franken-ring! Thanks for the additional reference rings -- I see what you're suggesting on the six prong. But I got lost on your point about a floating center prong -- I'm not sure what that is. So we're on the same page I'm not bringing the split prongs into the six prong design. I know that presents a challenge from the inspiration with the beautiful v-shaped prongs that split at the top and allow those swoops. Great idea about the satin finish BTW -- I'll think about that! I do agree that the patina on the inspiration is awesome. The edges will definitely be softened through polishing in the finishing step so they won't appear so squared off as in the CADs. (This is my second round of CADs.)

Niel, unfortunately no sketches of a final rendering can be produced. I agree that would be helpful.

Here's a list of suggested changes I have so far. Let me know if I've missed anything:

• Consider redesign of prongs to the Edwardian examples provided by rockysalamander.
  
• Make the donut smaller so the prongs are more angled.
• Add fluting to the donut.
• Slightly shrink the tabs on the prongs.
• Widen the shoulders/cathedrals to better match the proportions of the inspiration and adjust melee sizes as needed.
• Slightly angle the cathedrals up as they meet the crown.
• Confirm the millgrain will be hand-finished.
• Remove the millgrain at the end of the melees rows and capture the detail how the carves meld into the shank.
• Consider finishing with a satin finish.

Any other thoughts are welcome.

 

[rockysalamander]

In car with cranky pants 7 year old. Can't make a picture. On the floating... if you look at the top cad, you will see the prongs emerge on the right and left. The center prong does not contact the base...it floats. The eduardian styles makes contact with each prong at the base. The eduardian is more vintage, but the floating center prong will not hinder a wedding band. Have a look at the resilient on thegemstoneproject website under ring. Might be clearer. If I've confused more...will make pic tonight when cranky pants is sleeping.

 

[Niel]

I'd probably opt for 8 prongs vs 6 if you're worried about the girdle. Also, you could still put prongs at NSEW just with prongs in between as well.