shape
carat
color
clarity

Thoughts on this CAD?

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by greenpang, Jul 12, 2013.

  1. greenpang
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    by greenpang » Jul 12, 2013
    Hi all,

    Just received the third version of the CAD for my ring, and I think this is very close, if not good to go! Looking for feedback/suggestions before I officially sign off on it.

    What I wanted (in concept):
    - Sleek, modern, striking
    - Organic and flowing
    - Minimal -- showcase the stone, not take attention away from it
    - Somewhat unique (at least a little different than a standard four-prong solitaire)

    I ultimately decided to go with a NESW prong orientation because I was really grabbed by the look and thought it offered some uniqueness while still remaining minimal.

    The jeweler said to ignore the thickness of the prongs (especially at the bottoms) in the CAD. She said that they will be shaped in the metal and will be approximately half the size currently displayed in the CAD. (Also the tops of the prongs will completely different as they are molded to hold the diamond.)

    The stone is a 1.52 F VS2 H&A round diamond. 7.4mm in diameter.

    My ring size is 3.5. The bottom of the shank is 3mm wide and tapers to 1.6mm as it approaches the stone. Metal will be platinum.

    Comments or suggests about the design? Also, recommendations for how to shape the prongs? There seem to be so many nuances to the shape of prongs, and I haven't decided on anything.

    Thanks in advance!

    cad_8.jpg
     
    


    


  2. chrono
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    36,847
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    by chrono » Jul 12, 2013
    Beautiful design and I love how the shank breaks up into the 4 prongs very fluidly. A couple of questions:

    1. Did you request the bottom of the shank to be 3 mm wide? Have you worn anything 3 mm wide before? I find that my sweet spot for an all metal setting is a 2 mm width.

    2. How high does the diamond's culet sit above the seat of the setting? Is it notched to hold the diamond? Just curious.
     
  3. greenpang
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    by greenpang » Jul 12, 2013
    Thank you!

    1. They originally had the bottom of the shank at 3.4mm; 3mm is the thinnest they were able to get it because of the proportions of the rest of the design -- wanting to balance the weight to prevent the stone from wobbling around. I currently wear an Elsa Peretti stacking ring that says it's 3mm wide, so I'm used to this width. I did want the shank to be thin, so I think I will like the tapered 1.6mm width.

    2. I'm not sure; I will ask about this. The height of the table from the finger is 6.5mm, and the diamond's depth is 4.56mm, so there's about 2mm between the finger and the culet, but I'm not sure about the space between the seat of the setting and the culet -- especially because the thickness of the prongs / base of the head is going to be different when it is shaped. I don't believe it is notched to hold the diamond; would you recommend that?

    ETA: Related to #2, in the email the jeweler sent with this CAD, she said: "To make it look like there is more air underneath the stone the diamond would have to be set higher, which I would not advise."
     
  4. msop04
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,015
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    by msop04 » Jul 12, 2013
    I like the NSEW orientation -- I think it gives the ring a vintage feel of sorts. However the "bypass" prongs bother me - the way they curve and twist- it makes it seem off to me (this is my opinion only). :halo: Did you specificall want the head this way? I think it would look really pretty if you had them do some work on the basket. I thought this was pretty though - it has a very slight twist at the bottom. :))

    http://www.voltairediamonds.ie/en_U...nd-Brilliant-in-North-East-South-West-Setting
     
    


    


  5. chrono
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    36,847
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    by chrono » Jul 12, 2013
    I love my stones to be set as low as possible to avoid the top heavy look, feel and decrease the risk of the stone being banged around. It isn't necessary for the diamond to be set into a notched shank.
     
  6. greenpang
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    by greenpang » Jul 12, 2013
    Thanks; yeah, I did specifically want the head this way. The Voltaire ring is pretty, but it's "too much" for what I was going for. I really wanted a minimalist style, stripping away anything ornate for a sleek/modern look, and I didn't want the prongs to be "separate" pieces, but rather to be fluid with the shank. Here's a model that contributed to this design: http://www.serendipitydiamonds.co.uk/product/R1D002
     
  7. msop04
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    9,015
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    by msop04 » Jul 12, 2013
    The CAD looks very similar to the ring in the link. :)) Just out of curiosity, will this be your ring or a ring for your fiance? If it's for you, then I'm so glad your FH is letting you design it and get exactly what you want!! :appl: If for your lady, did she specify this style ring?

    I wanted to post a photo of a NSEW ring that I think is very pretty and has a vintage feel. You could also take the carving off the band for a shiny, more fluid look. What I like most are the flat prongs! It belongs to the PS member junebug, so I hope she doesn't mind that I posted it.

    junebug.png

    EDIT: Just saw that your posted your ring size, so I'm assuming this will be your ring... :mrgreen:
     

Share This Page