WHITEFLASH CAD design- help me give them some feedback

[tkatuw]

received my WF CAD drawing today. its pretty good-- but something’s not quite right and I cant really put my finger on it. one thing i know is I am so terrible at describing what i like-- its not the CAD designer''s fault.

first thing I noticed is that from the top view at an angle—the shared prongs on the band appear too bulky. I usually haven’t even noticed the prongs an a shared prong band—I just see the diamonds.

in describing what i wanted- i did refer them to a prior pricescope post. I like the band a lot in this design. Maybe the person whose ring this is could contact me and tell me more about their Whiteflash design. here is what the pricescope member wrote (and the link):
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-whiteflash-setting-with-sidestones.99919/
Mine is a .82 G SI1 ACA from Whiteflash in a custom WF setting, with 14 ACA 2-pointers in the melee. I absolutely LOVE this ring, it is literally my dream ring. I loved the shared-prong top view, but didn''t love the "scalloped" sides of the stock shared-prong settings, so I had this custom made to get what I really wanted! Mine is half-eternity and is so comfortable.

obviously she went with 14 ACA .02 pointers-- i am going with 12 ACA .025 pointers. but I like her ring. everything except for the head...where i would just simply take out the horizontal piece of metal in the legato head.

from the top view- my band almost looks like channel set because its a little wide. the ring referenced above looks narrower from the top view, the shared prongs are harder to see. and from the side view- its not as scalopped looking. and maybe thats the wrong word—but look at her side view (pricescope link above) a lot less indents for the diamonds on the band. I think mine are a little too scalloped.

as far as the head- i think its perefct-- integrated into the shank- as opposed to sitting on top.
but as for the prongs---do they look a little bulky-- kinda like 4 straight rectangular pieces of metal sticking straight up. i think i might want thinner prongs.

 

[tkatuw]

drawing 1

 

[tkatuw]

drawing 2

 

[lyra]

Are you referring to Star Sparkle''s ring. There are very clear pics here. It looks almost identical from the top view as your CAD, unless I''m really missing something. Also, the prongs always look big and bulky on CADs, you can tell WF you want delicate, and that''s what they''ll be. Unless you go for a different kind of pave, the CAD appears to be quite normal for shared prong. You should contact WF with your concerns of course.

 

[tkatuw]

yes-- thats the ring i am talking about. thanks so much for the other pictures-- i will send these to WF.

and yes- they did tell me the prongs will look bulky on the CAD.

what about the side scallop issue? can you do shared prong without that look?

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Don't panic! CADs always look bulkier than the intended design. The prongs can be fine tuned after casting, as can the shank. Just stress *delicate* when discussing this with your sales person!

I love the head integration into the shank! Looks very cohesive and lovely!

 

[SYC]

but as for the prongs---do they look a little bulky-- kinda like 4 straight rectangular pieces of metal sticking straight up. i think i might want thinner prongs.

Have you considered claw prongs? You could always ask for them. they are much more delicate.

 

[tkatuw]

what are claw prongs?
thanks

 

[SYC]

They come to a point -- here''s a link to an old thread of mine for an example:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pictures.94610/

Also, here''s a pic of a Leon Mege ring with claw prongs:
http://com.pricescope.com/photos/stones/picture1760.aspx