Thoughts on Setting CAD For Round Ruby E-Ring?

[sja1224]

Thanks to all who helped us in the previous threads we've made about the engagement ring.

Can you please give your thoughts on the CAD that our jeweler sent us?

It's a 6.7mm round ruby and he thinks 2.5mm diamonds will go. We liked the idea of a cluster setting and wanted something in this genre: https://www.langantiques.com/archive/estate-ruby-and-diamond-ring.html -- which someone on this forum posted as an example for us.

We want it to be able to be worn next to an engagement ring, so the setting is raised up to accommodate that.

Please let us know if you have any advice on changes you'd make to the CAD. Thanks!

 

[elle_71125]

Did you attach the CAD? I don't see anything.

 

[sja1224]

Sorry; I screwed up. Here is the CAD:

Also, we're looking for more of a "pedal" look than a "halo" look with the diamond cluster. We asked if the diamonds need to be spaced apart more or smaller, and the jeweler said it'll look more like a "pedal" in the actual ring.

This is more of what we envision "pedals" to look like:

versus a "halo" like this which we don't want it to look like:

Thoughts on how it will actually turn out?

 

[minousbijoux]

What color(s) gold are you thinking? I ask because to me, the pedal look only occurs when its white metal next to diamonds as in the first example you posted. This wouldn't prevent you from using yellow gold next to the ruby, in case that is of interest.

 

[sja1224]

What color(s) gold are you thinking? I ask because to me, the pedal look only occurs when its white metal next to diamonds as in the first example you posted. This wouldn't prevent you from using yellow gold next to the ruby, in case that is of interest.

Hi, we're using 18K yellow gold.

The "pedal look" appears in the yellow gold ring I linked in the OP:

 

[minousbijoux]

I understood that. I'm just saying that it reads more as petals if the stones in the halo are the same color as the outer prongs holding them, hence white metal for diamonds.

 

[sja1224]

I understood that. I'm just saying that it reads more as petals if the stones in the halo are the same color as the outer prongs holding them, hence white metal for diamonds.

I guess that makes sense!

 

[elle_71125]

I think the CAD comes off a little more halo than petal. The prongs at the base of the halo look good to me (putting them in between the diamonds instead of on the ends would have made it lean more halo style). The prongs at the tips help with the petal look too. I'm not sure that the diamonds are spaced far enough apart for what you're looking for.

It was hard for me to visualize the finished product so I started pulling up some round petal halos. Is this what you're going for?






This one is different, since it's actually using two sizes of diamonds but it definitely pulls off a petal look so I added it in.


In the pics I added, you can see that some rings have the diamonds touching almost half way up and others don't seem to touch at all. They still all bring that petal vibe but some more than others. I would try sharing your inspiration ring with her again and maybe ask for the diamonds to have a little more space between, if that's what your going for.

 

[sja1224]

Thanks elle_71125 for the feedback. When you say to maybe ask for more space between the diamonds, how is that accomplished?

Does that mean fewer or smaller diamonds, or can they just change the design we have? I prefer 12 rather than 10 or 11 for the sale of symmetry; going down to smaller diamonds would be okay.

 

[rockysalamander]

It also looks like the cathedral shoulder might look a bit better if it could tuck a bit more under the edge of the petal stones rather than coming up alongside...like the picture you posted as your inspiration (Post #3, first picture). In the CAD, the shoulder comes up almost vertically along the side.


You might also consider having the petal stones tip away (or fall away) from the center a bit (20 degree or so from level). It helps the ring have a better side view and I think it adds some depth and interest to the ring.

 

[sja1224]

It also looks like the cathedral shoulder might look a bit better if it could tuck a bit more under the edge of the petal stones rather than coming up alongside...like the picture you posted as your inspiration (Post #3, first picture). In the CAD, the shoulder comes up almost vertically along the side.

Yeah, we noticed that ourselves. Our jeweler said he talked to the CAD guy and he said it's not possible to tuck in the shoulder of the ring given the design and us wanting the cluster to sit high enough to accommodate a wedding band. Does this sound fishy and/or the CAD guy being lazy?

He also said the CAD guy said that the ring will look more petal'y in real life than in the CAD. We're skeptical of this, too.

 

[rockysalamander]

Floral Look. The ring you don't like has the shared prong located about 3/4 outward on each halo stone. So, there is little air between each halo stone. The one you like and they drew, has the shared prong tucked nearly at the bottom of each halo stone. That is good. But, they show the halo stone nearly touching girdles between each stone (which is akin to your "not" like). The ring you like has the full width of the shared prong separating the stones. So, they have the floral stones spaced closely like your "not like" but have the shared prong as your "like". I think they have to reduce the number of stones by 2. Then, play with halo stone sizes and the size of that shared prong to make it work.



You can actually remove all the prongs emerging from under the basket and gain a huge amount of height (and thus allow you to lower the basket to float over your band). All the prongs along the basket are decorative (more or less).



Relative to the Shanks. I don't get the issue they are raising. They just need to change the angle that the top of the shank (the part above the band) where it touches the basket. Essentially, they slide the upper part of the shank down along the basket wires to tuck it under. As long as the shank is equal in width from the top to the bottom or even tapered (so, not flared at the top), I don't see the issue.

If you look at the rings below, the basic shank is exactly what you want. You want the halo to float on top of the shanks, not be suspended between them. They will have to work out how to float the wire basket. If they really have an issue, have them explain it better, because I don't get it.

 

[rockysalamander]

Pic did not attach in previous message.

 

[sja1224]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback. I'm getting pushback from the jeweler's CAD guy about the shank issue. I'm unclear exactly what I should tell him about how to redo it. Here's my sketch of what I think we need:

Is this correct?

But The CAD guy has already said that they can't curve it in any more. I really don't know if they're correct or not. If you "tuck it in," doesn't that get in the way of the cathedral?

We just don't at all like how it comes straight up vertically. It looks very "unfeminine."

Also, about the petal vs. halo issue, the jeweler told us that the CAD guy said the gaps will be way too big if we go down from 12 stones to 10 or 11. And he said if we go down in size from 2.5mm diamonds to, say, 2.3mm diamonds, it'll look the same on the CAD and we won't even be able to notice the difference. Does this make any sense, or are they just being lazy? I'm a bit disappointed that they're not sending us CADs of the differences so we can actually see them and judge for ourselves what it would look like.

Thanks!

 

[rockysalamander]

Ok. So, the CAD guy needs to get creative. PIC Heavy. It is their job to solve your concerns, not make you do it, but that said...

1) Shoulder change. I get it, but they are not giving you options. You want the contact point between the cathedral shoulder and the basket to be under the halo (like this Jabel). The shoulder will be have to be nearly vertical as it become so as the head is raised. But, but it can still tuck under the head.

2) The shoulder of your inspo and the Cad are sloped inward (innies). if you want them more curved, you can borrow this shoulder from this Maevona setting. It will be shrugged (an outie). The top of the shoulder should not flare out like this one, but you are looking at the shoulder curl area. You can now get some curvature. Eorsa (top) and Iona (without pave but with some engraving).

Video: https://www.instagram.com/p/BCTMfEwJh-x/?tagged=eorsa&hl=en

View attachment 503889

View attachment 503891

 

[rockysalamander]

"Also, about the petal vs. halo issue, the jeweler told us that the CAD guy said the gaps will be way too big if we go down from 12 stones to 10 or 11. And he said if we go down in size from 2.5mm diamonds to, say, 2.3mm diamonds, it'll look the same on the CAD and we won't even be able to notice the difference. "

Ok, so math is a bitch. I think the issue is that they need more circumference to accommodate the size halo stone you want with the gaps. You want the gaps in your ring to finish as show in the inspo. You don't want the girdle close enough to touch. So, ask them if you go back to 12 stones, and you include an inner metal or halo band (see ideas below), would they have the space they need.

Here's the bezel set inner stone. It really is only kinda a bezel, it is a bezel with prongs. This would allow them to wider the circumference to allow them to sort our the math.

This is my double halo idea to get them to wider the circle circumference. But, those pink stones would be tiny and nearly invisible.

 

[rockysalamander]

Last one!

Ok. The other option to keep the height, but allow the shoulder to change is the change the basket wires from outies, to innies. Tacori 37-2 Full Bloom.
https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...m-round-halo-diamond-engagement-ring-2677.htm


So, the wires under the basket remain, but instead of sweeping out, the sweep inward. This solves their issue of keep the basket clear of your band. You can then tuck the shoulder without going down the Maevona shoulder path.


IRL

 

[sja1224]

Hi everyone, the jeweler set the stone in the CAD to show us what it would look like even though we didn't really like the shank. Pics are below. The view looking down looks good (petaly vs halo), but something about the shank going straight up still looks un-elegant. Thoughts?

 

[freezing_in_MO]

I have a very similar ring. The shank
Is a little more refined. Here are pictures, in case you find them helpful. I would be happy to post closeups. These photos are the ones I had on hand.

 

[sja1224]

freezing_in_MO, Thanks so much for the pics. Your shank/ring does look a little more elegant. I can't put my finger on what it is, though. Could you post close-ups? That would be great.

Does your ring allow a wedding band to sit flat next to it? I don't know if that constraint is what's making it hard for ours to look elegant.

 

[freezing_in_MO]

Sure. I will take some pictures later tonight. I think the problem is with the point where the shoulder meets the shank. Mine is a little more refine. The shoulders had to be vertical on mine as well, but the meeting point has been executed a little differently.

I wear mine with an eternity band that sits flush with the ring. That's a pet peeve of mine David Klass made my ring, and he managed a perfect flush fit without seeing the band, using only the measurements I sent him.

 

[freezing_in_MO]

Here you go. I tried to take pictures from a variety of angles, with and without the band.

I'm not nearly knowledgeable as others who have replied. I hope you the pictures help, and if they don't, that you get helpful answers from more knowledgeable PS members.

Good luck! Your stone and ring are beautiful!

 

[freezing_in_MO]

I just scrolled all the way up and realized that this is your engagement ring.

Congratulations! I hope the ring brings you joy for many years to come!