Would a cathedral ring with prong set diamonds look okay??

[jewelia]

Hi all of you fabulous PSers! I can't tell you how thankful I am to use this site as a reference. It is because of you that my BF discovered (and introduced me to) cushions. I am now the proud owner (well, technically he *still* is - tap,tap,tap) of a 2.25ct cushion diamond

');" alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/30.gif" border="0"> that is awaiting a platinum home. Okay, here's my question:

We are having a ring custom designed to fuse various elements I love: a cathedral setting, a surprise diamond, dual claw prongs and... I think diamonds on the actual band. My problem is I don't really 'feel' the bead set or pave model pics our jeweler has sent me. So today I stopped by the jeweler's again and saw a ring with prong set diamonds and loved the way that there was hardly any band showing. I asked them if they could set diamonds on the top of the cathedral setting with prongs and they said that they could, but I'm concerned that it may look 'funny' as I have now combed the internet and can't find anything like it. Maybe I'm a trendsetter?

Maybe there's a reason no one makes a ring like this?

');" alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/20.gif" border="0">

I'm trying not to be a "Ringzilla" here - but ... well, I guess I'm officially obsessed. The other option is to leave the band plain with no diamonds on the shank and to get an eternity wedding band - really I'd be okay with that. Here's a picture of the last model (without any prong set shank diamonds) the jeweler sent me. Ignore the towering prongs - just for the model - not the ring...

Your opinions/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Julia

 

[E B]

I think it looks awesome. I''ve never seen a design like that (that I can remember) and I really, really like it!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/4/2006 1:40:13 AM
Author:jewelia

I asked them if they could set diamonds on the top of the cathedral setting with prongs and they said that they could, but I'm concerned that it may look 'funny' as I have now combed the internet and can't find anything like it. ... Maybe there's a reason no one makes a ring like this?

If anything, diamonds may be paved onto the shoulders of the ring, not set in prongs. The idea is to get the look of uninterrupted diamond surface, keep the construction dainty and the diamonds safe. The 'diamond cover' would be patchy if the diamonds are prong set because there should be some space between them for the prongs. And pave is safer - pushed against a solid metal base, with the beads holding them in place so small that they cannot snag anything.

Just IMO.

I am writing this assuming there would be one or more rows of tiny stones on the shank because it looks dainty in the picture. Rings are done with eternity-style bands - but there is hardly any cathedral style done that way (see below the 'Rivierre' rings by Daniel K at Pearlmanjewelers, either on their site or in the Pricescope's Picture Gallery here).

'Kaleigh' tried this on recently.. see pictures on hand https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/breakfast-at-pearlmans-pics-included.37968/

As far as I understand, this would be a cathedral style ring (because the shoulders tapper upwards towards the diamond) with prong-set diamonds on the band. Is it anywhere close to what you had in mind?


If you definitely want larger diamonds (20 pts each or so), that sort of setting becomes a logical option. For a dainty band though, pave yields a daintier ring.

Much is a matter of taste here (assuming your jeweler can pull either style just as well). My 2c.


The CAD reminds me of a couple of rings: the 'surprise diamond' settings by Vatche and a line of rings with surprise diamonds by a custom jeweler I came to know ages ago (see Jewelryexpert.com).

Here they are:

This style is made for rounds and squares too - I wonder, in fact, if the version for the emerald diamonds linked below would not fit your cushion:

The same maker has a different ring with channel set 'cathedral' shoulders and sort of 'surprise' - not one diamond but a tiny paved bit. Is this anywhere close to what you are after (for the diamonds on the ring shank)?

The two tappering elements of the cathedral shank can be paved too - this ring has them so:

And this is the version from the other maker - Jewelry Expert:

The leaf-like shoulders and channel set 'floating' surprise diamonds made me remmember it

This one with a concave cut yellow sapphire came with better pictures, but there are a few more versions with different sizes of diamonds and colored stones where these come from (Link to Source).


The ring in your picture sounds very lovely as is though. Hope some of this helps

 

[jewelia]

Wow - thank you SO much for the info, Ana. And thank you for the kind words, EBree.

You are right that the right is dainty, Ana. I want to keep the ring on the narrow side to emphasize the cushion. Right now the shank in the model has a width of 2mm at the top where it meets the basket and graduates to 3mm at the bottom. I think I may widen the band slightly, but not too much.

The ring I saw today had larger prong set diamonds and the sides were sort of scalloped. I''ve attached a ring with similar sides. We took a piece of wax and affixed my diamond to the top of that band so I could get the effect. OH - it was stunning. Really pretty and the diamonds were big enough to be seen - but not to take away from the center stone. That band itself was 2mm, but the diamonds were (a little) bigger. When they said that they could prong set diamonds on my design, I was so happy - because I do prefer the larger size diamonds - so long as they aren''t *too* big. But the more I think about it, the more I worry that the scalloping that appeared on the side of that ring would look really odd on the cathedral shank and interupt the flow that you alluded to. I can''t imagine what it will look like.

If I were to go the pave route ala the Vatche design you posted, I would only want to do one row of pave diamonds - but I worry with such a narrow width the pave diamonds will get lost and look more like sparkle chips than the pretty mini-rocks I saw today. I am also not a big fan of the beading trim - but I know on these pictures it looks a lot more pronounced than it would on my hand.

The design from Jewelry Expert looks similar to one of the first drafts of my ring, except that one row of graduating diamonds was paved onto the shoulders. I thought that the graduating pave diamonds looked really odd and nixed that idea...but maybe if the diamonds were a consistent size, it would look much better. (?)

I''m itching to get this thing on my finger and so I need to make a decision soon! I suppose they will send me another model with the prong set diamonds tomorrow. The whole thing just makes me really nervous -

- I''d much rather have picked one out that I could see and feel and try on. I guess that there are advantages to an original though.

These people are going to get a restraining order against me by the time my design is complete (LOL) - but I''m going to ask them to do one pave and one prong set so I can compare.

/Julia

 

[valeria101]

I see what you mean... hopefully.

Drafting a custom piece should be fun, in theory. Unless it takes too much time. Hope this ends up happy.

Just remembered about a line with several types of setting diamonds on flush-fit, cathedral rings. It is their signature style!

These come from Precision Set. You may want to take a look over their website. I suspect ''prong set'' means different things for you and I. Your jeweler may find an example helpful with their CAD work too - if you happen to find one.

And the same from the side (to the right in the picture below):

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/4/2006 4:07:23 AM
Author: jewelia


The ring I saw today had larger prong set diamonds and the sides were sort of scalloped.... the diamonds were big enough to be seen - but not to take away from the center stone.

Sounds very lovely!

... and the perfect description of a successful setting recipe as much as I can tell - prong, pave, whatever - ideally, only the diamonds get to show.

That band itself was 2mm, but the diamonds were (a little) bigger.

Hm... could it be that the shared prongs were pushed towards the centre of the band? THIS PAGE shows three styles of shared prong eternity bands: w/o prongs set towards the outer edge of the band (they call it shared prong ''inside'' and ''regular''). A few times the ''inside'' eternity style rings were accused of scratching into the bands worn next to them because the girdles of the diamonds remain exposed. Perhaps the setting style with the prongs towards the edge prevents this. It would take 5min to ask.




But the more I think about it, the more I worry that the scalloping that appeared on the side of that ring would look really odd on the cathedral shank and interrupt the flow that you alluded to. I can''t imagine what it will look like.

The shared prong setting could be done without the scallops. Nothing too exotic either.

Sorry if this gets long...


Wouldn''t be easier if this wasn''t a cathedral style band? If there aren''t many done covered with diamonds, it may be for a reason. The band you tried your diamond on was a simple (not cathedral), right?

 

[jewelia]

I can''t thank you enough for your help, Ana. I just forwarded over the pic from Precision Set to my designer...I''m so excited that it exists! You are right that the one I tried was not a cathedral. It looked almost identical to the example I posted with the scalloped sides except my cushion was waxed onto the top. Not sure about the style of mounting.

I like the cathedral look because I think (along with a thin band) it draws the eye to the center stone and I like the flow. I''d chose the cathedral mounting over getting the diamonds on the shoulders if I had to make that awful choice. UGh. I hope I like the way the style looks with my design. If not, I''m going with the plain platinum (unless the pave with same width stones blows me away - hah) and I won''t look back. I''m obsessing over this now because it gives me something to focus on - but it''s the man I love more than the bling.

This had been so helpful. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

[jewelia]

Okay here is the updated CAD model with .07ct side diamonds and larger than life prongs. My designer said that in the shop, the guys will make the transition of the prongs and pinch in the metal, so from the top you will not see metal, except for the prongs. I''m going to look at the wax model tomorrow. I''m so excited (and nervous) to see it...

 

[Mara]

"That band itself was 2mm, but the diamonds were (a little) bigger. When they said that they could prong set diamonds on my design,"..

One word of serious caution here...re: the shared prong setting you are considering. You said the band is 2mm and the diamonds are bigger. That is a red flag for me in terms of extended girdles and therefore rubbing girdles against whatever other sort of band you put this ring up against. Some people have had problems with Signed Pieces set with rubbing girdles and girdles eating away at the other ring''s metal etc. You do not want the shared prong melee stone girdles to touch another stone OR another piece of metal in the form of another ring. So there would need to be a tiny space between the rings somehow or the girdles would not need to protrude, which sounds like they WILL if the band itself is say 2mm and the stones themselves are 2.2mm. That extra .2mm may be girdles sticking out...that scalloped look you like but also dangerous to a wedding band.

Just something to consider when you are getting this ring made. Consider the wedding band and what this ring means for that one as well.

 

[jewelia]

Thanks, Mara! I did indeed discuss this with my designer after I read Ana''s post and read a few horror stories.

She said that the metal on the bottom of the rings will be slightly flared to prevent any grindage or touching of diamonds on the 2 bands. Thank goodness I found this forum before we made any decisions... I definitely would not have thought of that.