WF CAD design is in...need help!

[misa1214]

Hello, I have an update to my previous thread (https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-the-perfect-ring-please.246049/#post-4478868)

So my sister's BF ended up purchasing a WF ACA 1.55 K VS1 ....YAY !
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4052019.htm

He wanted to put it on Brian Gavin's Dream Truth head half eternity (https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...de-stones/dream-half-eternity-truth-head-5498) with 4 pointers instead of 5 but opted to have whiteflash make the ring. He's new to all this and he wanted to avoid the extra hassle and just stick with one vendor.

The CAD has come in but we it definitely needs adjustment! I was hoping that you all could take a look and give us suggestions on how to improve the overall design since neither of us are good with putting what to fix into the proper words/terminology. Any help is greatly appreciated!

 

[rockysalamander]

WF may not be willing to duplicate a BGD setting. So, let's focus on the major elements and see if we can get this close, while adding some unique elements to make this truly your son's design.

1) The last diamond on the shoulders in the BGD has a rounded finish.. But, with the V in the head, a V-detail at the end of the pave shank would be really pretty. I'd ask that they raise the shank a bit at the last diamond and create a V-shaped prong (akin to this pear). The diamonds in your CAD are really tiny, so it won't be this strong a curve outward, but it shows the idea well.






2) I would ask if they can deepen the U-pave on the side to reveal more of the diamonds to the extent possible.

3) The head is a bit different, in that the BGD is a bit more squatty. To achieve that,
3.a I'd ask WF to set the main stone as low as possible in the head.
3.b. As they to raise the cross-bar V to be located immediately under the girdle after lowering the diamond.


4) You want the prong tips to be claw prongs.

5) The shank of the WF is basically rectangular. From the BGD design, you want to ask that they change the shank to be comfort fit from the pave to the bottom. The example in #6 is the same shank profile you likely want.

6) I'm not really a fan of the head being designed to put so much reliance on the single point of contact between the head and shank. I'd ask if they can change the bottom of the head, so that it comes around the shank (see highlight). This gives the head a HUGE amount more structural support and it will survive much better against a hard blow. This ring also offers a variation on the head detail that is quite pretty.



Sorry for the huge photos, but its hard to resize on my tablet.

 

[quaddio]

What Rocky said, 3B especially

 

[rockysalamander]

Edited to add. If you take my advice in #6, you want then to narrow that point first (think of a bow-tie). You don't want those prongs rubbed by a band. So, you want that wrap of the prongs to be internal to the shanks width.

 

[misa1214]

Thank you Rocky for the advice! He's having a hard time imagining the v-shape on the shoulder but would rather have a softer v instead. Regarding the U pave, I think deepening the u shape is the right call.

One thing that's really bugging him about the design are the shared prongs. He thinks there too prominent from the top view but i'm not sure if that just because of the cad and that they'll be less prominent after the finishing process? He also doesn't like in his words "pillars" (shared prongs hehe), are too pronounced and would like the side profile to be smoother. Is that how you would word it to WF?

 

[rockysalamander]

Added (again) This JA video shows another view of the same

Thank you Rocky for the advice! He's having a hard time imagining the v-shape on the shoulder but would rather have a softer v instead. Regarding the U pave, I think deepening the u shape is the right call.

One thing that's really bugging him about the design are the shared prongs. He thinks there too prominent from the top view but i'm not sure if that just because of the cad and that they'll be less prominent after the finishing process? He also doesn't like in his words "pillars" (shared prongs hehe), are too pronounced and would like the side profile to be smoother. Is that how you would word it to WF?

Yes. They are more obvious in the CAD. The CAD will show 20-30% more metal than the final ring. They need to cast it bigger to allow for finishing.

The CAD will end up with a ring (smaller diamond) that looks like this.

It sounds like he would prefer this.

 

[rockysalamander]

Made by WF.

 

[rockysalamander]

WF Version - In any of these, you don't want the diamond girdle to stick out further than the outermost edge of the prongs (from the top). That will help in pairing a wedding band.

 

[misa1214]

So I just got the CAD from my future brother-in-law. They look better but I still feel like all the points @rockysalamander addressed weren't met. What do you all think?

 

[molecule]

I would honestly consider paying the CAD fee and having BGD send the setting to whiteflash. Whiteflash likely does not want to copy every detail of the inspiration and the inspiration is already very fluid.

 

[rockysalamander]

Im at a concert for my kid. If nobody beats me to it, I'll mark up the pics you can send to WF in the am. Can you confirm that your son liked all my suggestions except the sharp V. @sledge and our new member @tr0janman make some nice markups, as well as other members.

 

[sledge]

Playing catch up on the history of this thread. Also having family night. May be in the AM before I can respond but should be early. For some God forsaken reason my internal alarm goes off around 5:30am most mornings, which is before my actual alarm.

Stay tuned. Post back ASAP.

 

[sledge]

Okay, here are some of my comments. In all cases, BGD inspiro is on the left and WF version is on the right. Let me know if you have any questions.

1. On the top view there are several issues going on that are different:



a) Red lines = WF version is giving the illusion of creating tiny channels on each side of the stone. It's a visual effect and not actual channels, but it appears your son prefers the BGD look where that channel isn't shown. I visually drew lines on the upper left side but the arrows indicate it's going on at all locations.

How do we get rid of it? As @rockysalamander pointed out, changing from this:

to this:

should do the trick. The key will be to make sure the U shaped swoops do not get too thick so that they become visible from the top view. And herein lies the trick. You want that metal at the edge of the melee diamond girdles so that when you place a wedding band next to it, the diamond doesn't get chipped or damaged and also so that it doesn't wear/rub/cut the wedding band.

In my comparison view above, I drew a diamond in light blue. The black line represents the verticial plane where the furthest tip of the girdle would extend. The red lines represent a SIDE view of the U-shaped channel. The trick here is that you want the thickness to extend over (or in this case, to the right) of the black line. Then when you place a wedding band (purple lines) next to the e-ring, those diamond melee girdles don't chew on it.

Effectively, you are creating a "spacer" and I believe this is what Rocky was trying to say earlier. The problem is that this spacer also creates a visual effect on the TOP view. You will see a tiny amount of thickness as a result. And IMO, it needs to be conveyed to WF that although you want "girdle protection", you want this as tiny as possible so that visual look of the BGD inspiro is maintained as much as possible. I'm not sure you will ever see it properly on a CAD because they are bulky but something that needs to be understood as this final look/effect will have an effect on your son's view of the overall craftsmanship and happiness with the ring.

b) Green lines = WF version appears to be tapering into the center stone. BGD version almost appears to be tapering the opposite. While my lines are exaggerated, the tapers are very gradual on both rings. Or so it appears to me. This could be a visual illusion. To me, it appears the BGD version has a slightly larger melee stone near the center stone. Again, gradual and slightly are key words here, but making this change to the WF version should give it more of the same appearance.

c) Blue circle = I'm not going to pick on WF too much here, but I think there needs to be some verbal conversation that you want very fine & delicate claw prongs. The BGD version is of the actual ring and the WF is a CAD so I give them a break as prongs always look horrible on CAD's (at least IMO) and I thought they did a good job showing them (prongs on my DK CAD was atrocious). Again, just make sure your rep understands this and conveys it to the bench. Probably a good idea to confirm some of your verbal conversations in an email, so there are no misunderstandings later.

 

[sledge]

2. This next detail is a fine little detail that smooths out the ring and just makes things flow. See the blue line and how I filled in with grey to show that we want to smooth out this transition so it looks natural and intentional instead of throwing a "speed bump" on the ring.

 

[rockysalamander]

@sledge and I were typing at the same time. Here's my markup. The smoothing detail just posted is really good to add.

 

[sledge]

Glad to see you post @rockysalamander. I was about to address the head and single point attachment but I see you got that covered.

Sorry I couldn't get here until now. I was trying. I planned to work on it last night and fell asleep on the couch sitting up with my laptop still open and on my lap, lol.

Anyhow, going to get horizontal for a little bit.

 

[rockysalamander]

Glad to see you post @rockysalamander. I was about to address the head and single point attachment but I see you got that covered.

Sorry I couldn't get here until now. I was trying. I planned to work on it last night and fell asleep on the couch sitting up with my laptop still open and on my lap, lol.

Anyhow, going to get horizontal for a little bit.

Get some sleep

 

[misa1214]

Thanks @sledge and @rockysalamander for your drawings. He's having a hard time picturing the different shared prong styles so I took a stab at it with photoshop (see below). I tried my best to shape the CAD showing both your suggestions. He told me he prefers style B much better.

Do you think that the photoshop version accurately describes the changes you all suggest? Because if so, i'll mark that up with your comments and send it to them.

 

[rockysalamander]

Thanks @sledge and @rockysalamander for your drawings. He's having a hard time picturing the different shared prong styles so I took a stab at it with photoshop (see below). I tried my best to shape the CAD showing both your suggestions. He told me he prefers style B much better.

Do you think that the photoshop version accurately describes the changes you all suggest? Because if so, i'll mark that up with your comments and send it to them.

That is great!! Looks great. I think that along with the write ups will nail this with wf.

 

[rockysalamander]

Your split a/b has the correct shank. The indiv. Views has the wrong version.

 

[sledge]

Looks good.

I noticed you tried to put in the comfort edge on the ring so it doesn't look like a flat pipe. I forgot to mention that earlier. I also wonder if elongating the shank so it's like a very, very soft and smooth "knife edge" would add a little to it. I think the BGD Inspiron has that going on. Also maybe a slight thickness taper from the melee to center bottom point of shank.

I can sketch if needed.

Also, what are these little humps in the metal?

 

[sledge]

Your split a/b has the correct shank. The indiv. Views has the wrong version.

Guess I started posting when you did.

Yes the comparison view picks up that change. This verbally needs clarified as I doubt someone will notice it otherwise.

Also still think a little taper is needed. On phone. Will try to sketch something.

 

[misa1214]

I changed the shank and "tried" to add a soft knife edge. I think I like it. Any thoughts?

 

[rockysalamander]

If he likes the shared prong with the vertical prongs, I see no issues with your final markup. Just make sure to label each items (A, B, C) and add a little narrative to draw their attention.

 

[misa1214]

Just received the revised cad and I don’t understand how much more communication it’s going to take to get the design to where it’ll be to our liking. I know that at times it can take many back and forths; but, certain aspects of the design have been pointed out twice now. It seems that imho, the cads when pertaining to certain feature(s), demonstrate that there isn’t even an attempt on WF’s part to follow the client’s critique because it looks like those features haven’t been modified from one cad to next.

I understand from the previous comments that WF may not want to recreate the BG ring. Eventhough I think that through the design process, the design went in a different direction (e.g. head attachment, soft knife edge,etc...) and it’s not an exact copy.

Regardless, if that was the case, shouldn’t WF be upfront with the client and tell them what is and isn’t a realistic expectation? Then, based on that, the client makes the decision to proceed or go elsewhere and not have the company make the decision for them? After all, my future brother-in-law was upfront and said he wanted to send the stone to BG for setting. They assured him they could make the ring he wanted.

At this stage we’re both frustrated and I’m trying my hardest to assure him it’ll all work out in my calm voice. My brother-in-law doesn’t know what to do. He’s losing confidence with WF, a company I told him based on experience and this forum that he could trust.


Here’s the new cad:




Here’s the version I gave them:

 

[rockysalamander]

@Texas Leaguer pinging you for some help. I think the poster's CAD markup is clear and detailed. The revised CAD is still lacking in key details and they are losing faith. Can you have a look? Detailed post in #25.

 

[sledge]

Sorry @misa1214. I know this can be frustrating. I reached a similar point when I was working through the design with DK, and I wanted to make someone my punching bag. Reality is I just needed to take a breath and step away a minute. Then I re-grouped and re-attacked. In my case I had been emailing lots of detailed information, but I think something got lost in all the detail so picking up the phone and communicating some items was very beneficial and got the project back on track IMO.

I'd encourage you to do the same.

One final piece of wisdom....the CAD's, plastic model and wax model did no justice to the finished piece. It's tough to do a computer rendering and have it as sleek as the real deal. Lots to be said for the final finishing. So while difficult, try to keep the faith.

On a positive note, I think you may be a little closer than you think. Using your numbers in post #25, I'll offer some comments:

1 - WF missed this. They need to raise the V as requested.

2 - WF tried to adjust their design. Notice how the original was just sitting on top of the ring, and this version is actually sitting much lower? The problem is you want those prongs to swoop down and become an integral part of the shank so you eliminate the modified "peg head" they proposed on this last revision.

3 - They picked up the transition and smoothed it out. Maybe too much though. IMO, it needs a little more curve for a nice smooth transition.

4 - I feel they did lower the diamond. Hard to tell as there are no dimensions, but I think it needs to be clearly stated you want that diamond as low as they can make it within reason. Assuming they make the prongs integral like in #2 above, this will likely allow them to lower the diamond a smidge more.

5 - Refer to note #6 below. Looks like they picked up the profile, but the shadowing in the CAD isn't picking it up on the upper view.

6 - Looks to me like they added a knife edge. Look at the bottom of the side profile and you will see the smoothed out profile (almost looks like a motorcycle tire).

7 - Looks like WF picked up the comfort fit to me. Do you want more? I might trust them on what is right.

8 - WF CAD's are more like 3D shaded models than the CAD's I got from DK but in my CAD's the prongs looked hideous (like alien antennas). It drove me nuts, but I clearly communicated to DK that I wanted small, delicate prongs and Amy reassured me they would be done properly in the finishing process but had to be made that way from the beginning so enough metal existing for them to carve properly. My point is maybe this is the best you will see on the WF CAD as well, and all parties just need to be crystal clear your expectations so they get done right in the finishing process.

9 - That's right, I sneak in a new number. What is up with the side profile? The ring looks pregnant and fat. I think you want a parallel look so it appears more skinny.

Oh yeah, a picture for good measure. Red are items I think they addressed. Blue & green are items I think require some more attention.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Wow. @rockysalamander and @sledge , you guys are amazing!

@misa1214, you have done a great job integrating the feedback and communicating the revisions desired.
I will look in on production and see if I can help facilitate a smooth landing here! From what I see I think Sledge is right - you are closer than you think.

 

[misa1214]

Thank you @rockysalamander, @sledge and @Texas Leaguer ! He should be speaking with Michelle today and hopefully they will have a good discussion on how to best proceed.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you @rockysalamander, @sledge and @Texas Leaguer ! He should be speaking with Michelle today and hopefully they will have a good discussion on how to best proceed.

Yes, I met with production this morning and there was already another CAD in the works which is expected to be ready later today. Hopefully it will capture all the design elements that have been requested.
Persistence is a virtue!