Which Halo Ring looks better? Please help! =)

[MayForever]

Hi everyone, need a second opinion on these few Halo Rings!

Been inspired by Forevermark Natalie K Halo Ring, I've been searching almost everywhere for a similar ring like this :-



After a long search, I finally found a nice guy who've helped me to make the design similar to what I'm looking for (I've to admit that I'm a little picky), but I know my SO is even more pickier than me, that's why I need to look on every single details, unfortunately

She hinted me she loves the bouquet of flower concept from the side view, exactly like the Forvermark version, which I don't normally see this kind of design. Which looks similar to Design 1.

I started my thread on :- [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ideal-halo-ring-size-of-diamond-setting.207514/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ideal-halo-ring-size-of-diamond-setting.207514/[/URL]
and many told me that I should go for 16 nos. melees, which I started the Design 3. P/S* I'll still need to make amendment to micropave as the Design 3 is only the draft version but I'm worried that it might not looks like a bouquet of flower if I were to do so. Which is why I created Design 1 & 2 for comparison


Design 1 :-



Design 2 :-



Design 3 :- ( Ignore the prong, it will need to change to micropave V-cut which I'm deciding whether if I should consider )




Ladies and gentlemen, do you think that :-

1.) The gap between the melees are huge or it's just negligible? ( Shapeway.com ; a 3d printing company doesn't allow prong size lesser than 0.8mm, which is why I change the design to 0.8 mm, which then causes a bigger gap between the melee )
2.) Will the ring looks oversize? Initially I'm worried, which is why I size it down to 16 melees.
3.) Any other way to improve it?
4.) I'm thinking whether to change it to 16 nos. melees just like the Design 3. It will looks the best, with micropave setting on the face up view, but I'm worried that it might not looks like a bouquet of flower from the side view if using this concept.

After searching and I found something interesting.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/got-cad-drawings-from-wf-need-opinions.176965/page-2']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/got-cad-drawings-from-wf-need-opinions.176965/page-2[/URL]

He manage to design it nicely, even with the bigger 1 carat stone, and lesser nos. of melees, the face up view still looks stunning
Not sure if My design 1 & 2 will looks as pretty as his from the face up view?

 

[danielxlin]

Just for clarity, you're going with the 0.688 carat center and 3-pointer melee for both designs 1 and 2?

I think either design 1 or 2 is going to look great. Not a true flower halo (I think those start to happen with 5 pointer halos), just a chunky halo. The CAD's make melee look huge but in real life 3-pointers will still be delicate.

 

[MayForever]

Hi danielxlin!

Yea, it's a 0.688ct with 3 pointer. My designer is helping me to reduce the gap in between the melees by making it to 5 pointer, expecting tomorrow will see the result, maybe we can make a comparison

The current design 1 & 2, having a gap of 0.4 mm between the melees. He says that he can reduce the gap by increasing the melees to 5 pointer, which is an additional of 1mm in total diameter I guess? I can't decide whether to making the gap closer by having even bigger melees (which I'm quite against to) or remain the size but having a slight gap between the melees.What you think ya? Is the 4mm quite negligible in this size or I should reduce the gap?

 

[chrono]

Design 1 looks closest to the original. Keep in mind that the larger the melees, the more dwarfed the centre diamond will look.

 

[tyty333]

I think you get the "flower" look when the sides of the melee stick out past the metal and each melee creates a curve (or petal) on
the outside of the ring. This look is usually done with larger, less melee (vs tinier, more melee). So, I think design 1 or 2 would
work for what you're looking to do. Bigger melee might be even better. Would like to see a CAD with 5 pointers. Don't want
to overwhelm the center stone though.

 

[danielxlin]

Hi danielxlin!

Yea, it's a 0.688ct with 3 pointer. My designer is helping me to reduce the gap in between the melees by making it to 5 pointer, expecting tomorrow will see the result, maybe we can make a comparison

The current design 1 & 2, having a gap of 0.4 mm between the melees. He says that he can reduce the gap by increasing the melees to 5 pointer, which is an additional of 1mm in total diameter I guess? I can't decide whether to making the gap closer by having even bigger melees (which I'm quite against to) or remain the size but having a slight gap between the melees.What you think ya? Is the 4mm quite negligible in this size or I should reduce the gap?

I think the 3-pointers are the perfect size with that 0.688 center. No larger.

There really shouldn't be an issue with gaps between melee. The master ringmaker should be able to make sure everything, including the size of the prongs holding the melee, is proportional.

The absolutely necessary task if you're going with bigger melee: you must make sure the melee quality is excellent. Badly cut melee will be obvious because the stones are larger.

 

[MayForever]

I think you get the "flower" look when the sides of the melee stick out past the metal and each melee creates a curve (or petal) on
the outside of the ring. This look is usually done with larger, less melee (vs tinier, more melee). So, I think design 1 or 2 would
work for what you're looking to do. Bigger melee might be even better. Would like to see a CAD with 5 pointers. Don't want
to overwhelm the center stone though.

Hi tyty333,

I think 5 pointer might be a little too large for her. Having the melee stick out more than the metal will not be the one that she loves.
I guess it will looks like this? She loves round shape, not so a floral shape from the face up view though

 

[MayForever]

Hi danielxlin!

Yea, it's a 0.688ct with 3 pointer. My designer is helping me to reduce the gap in between the melees by making it to 5 pointer, expecting tomorrow will see the result, maybe we can make a comparison

The current design 1 & 2, having a gap of 0.4 mm between the melees. He says that he can reduce the gap by increasing the melees to 5 pointer, which is an additional of 1mm in total diameter I guess? I can't decide whether to making the gap closer by having even bigger melees (which I'm quite against to) or remain the size but having a slight gap between the melees.What you think ya? Is the 4mm quite negligible in this size or I should reduce the gap?

I think the 3-pointers are the perfect size with that 0.688 center. No larger.

There really shouldn't be an issue with gaps between melee. The master ringmaker should be able to make sure everything, including the size of the prongs holding the melee, is proportional.

The absolutely necessary task if you're going with bigger melee: you must make sure the melee quality is excellent. Badly cut melee will be obvious because the stones are larger.

Hi danielxlin,

Thanks for your reply! I think that should be an ideal size though.
I initially was a little worry that the gap is too large in between the melees ( 0.4 mm ) that it might looks like this? What you think or is that normal?



I just don't understand why, the below ring really looks perfectly stunning Is that because of the lighting or the workmanship?
This 1.25 carat with 12 melees really looks great!



** My designer initially told me that he can reduce the gap to as small as 0.2mm between the melees by increase the melees from 3 pointers ( 2mm) to 5 pointers (2.5mm). But after I think bout it, I might be able to reduce the center gap to another 0.2 mm, like the below, but the outer prong area will then increase because of the larger melees too though.



Not to mention that the center diamond will looks smaller, the overall setting might be too huger ( although it's only like another 1mm+- ) and also I'll need more quality melees. So, after some discussion with my designer, I think I'll drop my plan for the 5 pointer melees.

I think the 10 melees with 3 pointers should be perfectly fine

Thank you very much!

 

[MayForever]

Design 1 looks closest to the original. Keep in mind that the larger the melees, the more dwarfed the centre diamond will look.

Hi Chrono,

Thank you for the reminder, I'll take note on that

 

[danielxlin]

In real life you won't be bothered by any gaps between the melee. The really bright melee will distract you. Again it's the ringmakers responsibility to create visual balance and security of melee. The prongs and spacing have to be exactly right and proportional.

I bought a setting off the shelf but it is similar to examples you've cited above. 1.08 carat center with twelve 4 pointers in the halo. Chunky halo but not quite a flower halo.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/extra-chunky-idj-halo-reset.212540/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/extra-chunky-idj-halo-reset.212540/[/URL]

 

[solgen]

Thanks for your reply! I think that should be an ideal size though.
I initially was a little worry that the gap is too large in between the melees ( 0.4 mm ) that it might looks like this? What you think or is that normal?



I just don't understand why, the below ring really looks perfectly stunning Is that because of the lighting or the workmanship?
This 1.25 carat with 12 melees really looks great!

I don't think it's an issue so much with the gap between the melees but the gap between the melees and the center stone. It doesn't integrate as well. I've been looking at halos and you do want the halo to be at an angle to the center rather than having the table parallel to each other. It integrates better and makes the melees look like an extension of the center. Smaller melees also help to give a a more round shape to the halo. You can go larger if you want that bouquet look. Not sure how you can have the bouquet look from the side and not from the top though.

 

[tyty333]

I thought you were looking for the "flower" look...

 

[MayForever]

Thanks for your reply! I think that should be an ideal size though.
I initially was a little worry that the gap is too large in between the melees ( 0.4 mm ) that it might looks like this? What you think or is that normal?



I just don't understand why, the below ring really looks perfectly stunning Is that because of the lighting or the workmanship?
This 1.25 carat with 12 melees really looks great!

I don't think it's an issue so much with the gap between the melees but the gap between the melees and the center stone. It doesn't integrate as well. I've been looking at halos and you do want the halo to be at an angle to the center rather than having the table parallel to each other. It integrates better and makes the melees look like an extension of the center. Smaller melees also help to give a a more round shape to the halo. You can go larger if you want that bouquet look. Not sure how you can have the bouquet look from the side and not from the top though.

I wonder if I make it 11 nos. melee instead of 10, will that helps to make it more round? Actually when you look at the original Forevermark photo, the side view did look like a whole bouquet of flower, I just don't know how to describe it, but it looks pretty. While for the top view, I've to agree with Danielxlin, a like the chunky look instead

 

[MayForever]

I thought you were looking for the "flower" look...

I'm sorry tyty333,

I think what I meant was chunky look instead. The photo of that Forevermark did looks chunky. I've been searching for this abbreviation for so long, from cluster, flowery, etc but I think chunky best describe how the face up view that I'm searching for.

I'm not saying the flower looks don't looks good, they are great. Just that I tried showing her some flowery view and she still prefers the chunky kind of view. But really thanks for your feedback! You make me search even more for the comparison between flower and chunky.

 

[MayForever]

In real life you won't be bothered by any gaps between the melee. The really bright melee will distract you. Again it's the ringmakers responsibility to create visual balance and security of melee. The prongs and spacing have to be exactly right and proportional.

I bought a setting off the shelf but it is similar to examples you've cited above. 1.08 carat center with twelve 4 pointers in the halo. Chunky halo but not quite a flower halo.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/extra-chunky-idj-halo-reset.212540/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/extra-chunky-idj-halo-reset.212540/[/URL]

Thanks danielxlin!

You ring looks nice

Any idea what's the size of the prong? Do you think if I make it 11 nos. of melee will looks good too?

I finally got what you mean bout chunky but not flower! That's what I'm looking for, thanks a million! Sorry, really new with ring. It takes me awhile to imagine bout what's the best and how it should looks like. But your ring looks great