Calling for antique emerald cut experts - close to pulling the trigger on 4+ carat stone!

[ItsMainelyYou]

The width appears to be about 2.5 by the stone and taper to 1.8 at the palm size. Are you suggesting widening the palm side?

I agree with making the shank a little wider so the diamonds are larger fwiw

Ah, needed clarity!

Yes, taper to 2mm on the palm.

 

[RX1990]

Thanks all. Here is a follow up rendering that Amy followed up with based on the CAD she sent over yesterday. I am going to follow up in another reply below with my consolidated thoughts based on my own opinions and feedback received here.

 

[BlingDreams]

Thanks all. Here is a follow up rendering that Amy followed up with based on the CAD she sent over yesterday. I am going to follow up in another reply below with my consolidated thoughts based on my own opinions and feedback received here.

How nice to have those renderings! I’m even more convinced that the side stones should be slightly larger and tabs for the prongs. Even if you’re not sure, I’d suggest asking for renditions just so you can see for yourself; sometimes it’s hard to envision the results when you’re new to designing things. At worst, it’ll reinforce what you DO want

 

[RX1990]

See below for the comments I was going to send back to DK. This reflects my own initial reactions as well as considering feedback I've received here. As part of this, I am going to ask her for an updated draft with both the double claw prongs and tab prongs (everything the same except prongs) so I can decide.

The one thought I didn't mention before but wanted to flag for her review after looking at this some more is the position of the gallery rail and if it "covers" too much of the diamond's pavilion in side profile. I recognize this is a taller diamond than what's in the inspo ring, but wanted to at least flag this and get her thoughts on it. Given the K color, maybe it's best to have some more of the pavilion covered up. I just want to make sure you can really get a visual of how tall the centerstone is. Welcome feedback on this comment #4 before sending to them.

 

[BlingDreams]

See below for the comments I was going to send back to DK. This reflects my own initial reactions as well as considering feedback I've received here. As part of this, I am going to ask her for an updated draft with both the double claw prongs and tab prongs (everything the same except prongs) so I can decide.

The one thought I didn't mention before but wanted to flag for her review after looking at this some more is the position of the gallery rail and if it "covers" too much of the diamond's pavilion in side profile. I recognize this is a taller diamond than what's in the inspo ring, but wanted to at least flag this and get her thoughts on it. Given the K color, maybe it's best to have some more of the pavilion covered up. I just want to make sure you can really get a visual of how tall the centerstone is. Welcome feedback on this comment #4 before sending to them.

I like your notes. The rail may be slightly taller for structural integrity/protection of your diamond, but a good ask.

One thing to clarify on my end - I think the stones on the shank are a good size; they’ll add a nice delicate balance. If it were me, I’d only increase the two stones on either side of the center stone.

 

[BlingDreams]

@RX1990 - Did they say when you’d have a new design to review?

 

[molecule]

My personal preference would be to opt for single long stones next to the main stone rather than the double stones.

 

[RX1990]

@RX1990 - Did they say when you’d have a new design to review?

Waiting on an updated version which I'll share here. Next version should have larger side stones (same shank stones), taper to 2mm at the palm, and both double claw and tabbed prong options.

Amy did clarify a few things with me regarding the CAD model and rendering which were comforting to here. First, the metal around the French cuts should go down by approximately half and appear much thinner in person (as some of you also indicated here). Second, the final version of the shoulder and areas I flagged in comments #2 and #3 in my post above will be a lot less chunky than the CAD and rendering.

She also mentioned she could lower the gallery rail if I wanted to, but after looking at the rendering again (in post #153 above), I am not so sure we need to lower it after closely examining the side profile image in the bottom left corner. When looking at the side profile from that view, I think the height is at a pretty good place and provides balanced gallery visibility of the diamond's pavilion.

 

[BlingDreams]

Waiting on an updated version which I'll share here. Next version should have larger side stones (same shank stones), taper to 2mm at the palm, and both double claw and tabbed prong options.

Amy did clarify a few things with me regarding the CAD model and rendering which were comforting to here. First, the metal around the French cuts should go down by approximately half and appear much thinner in person (as some of you also indicated here). Second, the final version of the shoulder and areas I flagged in comments #2 and #3 in my post above will be a lot less chunky than the CAD and rendering.

She also mentioned she could lower the gallery rail if I wanted to, but after looking at the rendering again (in post #153 above), I am not so sure we need to lower it after closely examining the side profile image in the bottom left corner. When looking at the side profile from that view, I think the height is at a pretty good place and provides balanced gallery visibility of the diamond's pavilion.

I like the height of the rail. You’ll get some beautiful views of the K color as well as the height of the crown.

One difference I noticed, that may help address the shoulders concern — the CAD seems to have a smaller opening and doesn’t have a grooved line like the original. Elongating that opening/triangle and/or adding an engraved line (as though two pieces of metal were being joined) may help. Here’s a visual example - original CAD on the left, my edit on the right, and inspo ring on the bottom.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like the height of the rail. You’ll get some beautiful views of the K color as well as the height of the crown.

One difference I noticed, that may help address the shoulders concern — the CAD seems to have a smaller opening and doesn’t have a grooved line like the original. Elongating that opening/triangle and/or adding an engraved line (as though two pieces of metal were being joined) may help. Here’s a visual example - original CAD on the left, my edit on the right, and inspo ring on the bottom.

I like this suggestion!

 

[RX1990]

I like the height of the rail. You’ll get some beautiful views of the K color as well as the height of the crown.

One difference I noticed, that may help address the shoulders concern — the CAD seems to have a smaller opening and doesn’t have a grooved line like the original. Elongating that opening/triangle and/or adding an engraved line (as though two pieces of metal were being joined) may help. Here’s a visual example - original CAD on the left, my edit on the right, and inspo ring on the bottom.

I like this suggestion!

Thank you for this. This is exactly what I was trying to communicate to them in my initial feedback/comments regarding the side profile looking "too chunky" around the shoulder. I have passed this along (including your diagram!) as a clarifying comment. You hit the two major items that were exactly on my mind. First, making the triangular opening more elongated. Second, having some kind of engraved line/indentation where the shoulder merges with the shank so you get more of the two pieces of metal gradually coming together look. I am guessing some of the second item won't be reflected in the CAD model and gets handled by hand as part of the fine detail work.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I like the height of the rail. You’ll get some beautiful views of the K color as well as the height of the crown.

One difference I noticed, that may help address the shoulders concern — the CAD seems to have a smaller opening and doesn’t have a grooved line like the original. Elongating that opening/triangle and/or adding an engraved line (as though two pieces of metal were being joined) may help. Here’s a visual example - original CAD on the left, my edit on the right, and inspo ring on the bottom.

Great eye!

 

[RX1990]

Updated design below. Shown with double claw and tabbed prong options.

Changes reflected include 20% larger side stones (note: they also increased the size of the shank stones to be proportionally the same as the inspiration ring), thinner shoulders (as seen in side profile), and tapering down to 2.0 mm width.

On the prongs, I am really torn between the two options. I know my girlfriend likes the tabbed prongs as shown in the inspiration ring but is open to other options, including double claw prongs (just no compass prongs!). The one thing she has told me is she's a fan of prongs being as minimal and dainty/delicate as possible. I would really like to avoid getting more guidance from her on this because I am hoping pulling off this project will be a complete surprise to her.

I genuinely welcome guidance and feedback on prong options now that the rest of the mounting is coming together. My primary question on the tabbed prongs: is there a feasible way to make them thinner, lower profile, less obvious, etc.? One thing I like about the double claw prongs is that I feel like they guide your eyes to the windmill facets face up. That said, I recognize the tabbed prongs may be considered more period appropriate for this kind of mounting.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I prefer tabs as they are period appropriate. I think when finished they will be very unobtrusive.

I like the tweaks to the design here though! Looks great.

 

[newtojewels]

Updated design below. Shown with double claw and tabbed prong options.

Changes reflected include 20% larger side stones (note: they also increased the size of the shank stones to be proportionally the same as the inspiration ring), thinner shoulders (as seen in side profile), and tapering down to 2.0 mm width.

On the prongs, I am really torn between the two options. I know my girlfriend likes the tabbed prongs as shown in the inspiration ring but is open to other options, including double claw prongs (just no compass prongs!). The one thing she has told me is she's a fan of prongs being as minimal and dainty/delicate as possible. I would really like to avoid getting more guidance from her on this because I am hoping pulling off this project will be a complete surprise to her.

I genuinely welcome guidance and feedback on prong options now that the rest of the mounting is coming together. My primary question on the tabbed prongs: is there a feasible way to make them thinner, lower profile, less obvious, etc.? One thing I like about the double claw prongs is that I feel like they guide your eyes to the windmill facets face up. That said, I recognize the tabbed prongs may be considered more period appropriate for this kind of mounting.

I'm sure you've seen this thread on tab prongs for emerald cuts, but just in case: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tab-prong-settings-for-emerald-cut.277919/

I was surprised how minimal prongs were in real life when I got my first high-quality jewelry (a paraiba tourmaline ring preloved from a PSer). I was so used to seeing big prongs in other people's lower-quality jewelry in real life and super zoomed in photos and CADs on PS that make the prongs seem substantial. With your huge, beautiful stone and with DK knowing your goal is a more streamlined look, I'm sure you'll be very pleasantly surprised when you see the ring in person, whichever prong option you choose.

 

[BlingDreams]

Updated design below. Shown with double claw and tabbed prong options.

Changes reflected include 20% larger side stones (note: they also increased the size of the shank stones to be proportionally the same as the inspiration ring), thinner shoulders (as seen in side profile), and tapering down to 2.0 mm width.

On the prongs, I am really torn between the two options. I know my girlfriend likes the tabbed prongs as shown in the inspiration ring but is open to other options, including double claw prongs (just no compass prongs!). The one thing she has told me is she's a fan of prongs being as minimal and dainty/delicate as possible. I would really like to avoid getting more guidance from her on this because I am hoping pulling off this project will be a complete surprise to her.

I genuinely welcome guidance and feedback on prong options now that the rest of the mounting is coming together. My primary question on the tabbed prongs: is there a feasible way to make them thinner, lower profile, less obvious, etc.? One thing I like about the double claw prongs is that I feel like they guide your eyes to the windmill facets face up. That said, I recognize the tabbed prongs may be considered more period appropriate for this kind of mounting.

I like all of the updates! Can you also request rendered photos, like they provided previously?

As for the question of claws or tabs, I understand your concern. We can all weigh in with our opinions but, in the end, it’s you that will be seeing it every day for the rest of your life so I’d say listen to your heart. If you’d prefer the tabs but are worried they’ll be too bulky, know that they can be done very delicately. Here’s an example from a Google search:


You can also ask DK to share photos with you with examples of tabs they’ve executed. If you go with prongs, they’ll look nice too! Here’s an example of doubles he did on an actual emerald:


If it were ME, I’d go delicate tabs as I think it’ll look more streamlined. But again, either choice will be beautiful

 

[bright ice]

Tab prongs would be ideal for this ring.

 

[RX1990]

I prefer tabs as they are period appropriate. I think when finished they will be very unobtrusive.

I like the tweaks to the design here though! Looks great.

I'm sure you've seen this thread on tab prongs for emerald cuts, but just in case: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tab-prong-settings-for-emerald-cut.277919/

I was surprised how minimal prongs were in real life when I got my first high-quality jewelry (a paraiba tourmaline ring preloved from a PSer). I was so used to seeing big prongs in other people's lower-quality jewelry in real life and super zoomed in photos and CADs on PS that make the prongs seem substantial. With your huge, beautiful stone and with DK knowing your goal is a more streamlined look, I'm sure you'll be very pleasantly surprised when you see the ring in person, whichever prong option you choose.

I like all of the updates! Can you also request rendered photos, like they provided previously?

As for the question of claws or tabs, I understand your concern. We can all weigh in with our opinions but, in the end, it’s you that will be seeing it every day for the rest of your life so I’d say listen to your heart. If you’d prefer the tabs but are worried they’ll be too bulky, know that they can be done very delicately. Here’s an example from a Google search:


You can also ask DK to share photos with you with examples of tabs they’ve executed. If you go with prongs, they’ll look nice too! Here’s an example of doubles he did on an actual emerald:


If it were ME, I’d go delicate tabs as I think it’ll look more streamlined. But again, either choice will be beautiful

Tab prongs would be ideal for this ring.

Thank you all for the input on this! I recognize this is entirely my own decision but your thoughts (not just opinions) are very helpful. At this point I am definitely leaning more towards the tabbed prong look assuming the final product will be low profile, unobtrusive, and very streamlined with the overall design.

One follow up question I have is how should I think about about the "width" of the prong vs. the clipped corner of the diamond each prong is covering? For instance, in the latest CAD draft I shared, you can see the tabbed prongs pretty much cover the entire length of the clipped corner. The original inspiration ring also has this, but the cut corners on that ring are less deep, so the tabbed prongs don't look appear to be nearly as wide relative to the overall diamond.

I have seen other examples where the width of the tabbed prong does not cover the entire length of the cutaway corners, leaving some of the "clipped" corner exposed. Is this a decision that should be driven by practical reasons/out of necessity (e.g., keep the diamond secured and avoid potential chipping) or is there some flexibility on the design?

Examples of tabbed prongs leaving some of the cut corner exposed contained in this thread (from previous posts):





Examples of tabbed prongs covering most/virtually all the cut corners (first image below is the inspiration ring):

 

[BlingDreams]

. One follow up question I have is how should I think about about the "width" of the prong vs. the clipped corner of the diamond each prong is covering? For instance, in the latest CAD draft I shared, you can see the tabbed prongs pretty much cover the entire length of the clipped corner. The original inspiration ring also has this, but the cut corners on that ring are less deep, so the tabbed prongs don't look appear to be nearly as wide relative to the overall diamond.

I have seen other examples where the width of the tabbed prong does not cover the entire length of the cutaway corners, leaving some of the "clipped" corner exposed. Is this a decision that should be driven by practical reasons/out of necessity (e.g., keep the diamond secured and avoid potential chipping) or is there some flexibility on the design?

In your case — yes, there’s flexibility. In smaller stones, no, because prongs need to be a certain size for security and they have less “real estate”. The upside of going smaller is that you’ll get more of the “eye being drawn to the windmills” effect that you like about the claws. The downside is that you’ll leave the delicate corners exposed to damage. Because the girdle on your diamond is slightly thick to thick, you’re at a bit less risk of that happening, but still a consideration.

Questions I’d consider are is your girlfriend active with her hands or more sedentary? Will she mind/be cognizant of removing her ring when she’s doing more active activities? How devastated would either/both of you be if the diamond chipped?

 

[RX1990]

In your case — yes, there’s flexibility. In smaller stones, no, because prongs need to be a certain size for security and they have less “real estate”. The upside of going smaller is that you’ll get more of the “eye being drawn to the windmills” effect that you like about the claws. The downside is that you’ll leave the delicate corners exposed to damage. Because the girdle on your diamond is slightly thick to thick, you’re at a bit less risk of that happening, but still a consideration.

Questions I’d consider are is your girlfriend active with her hands or more sedentary? Will she mind/be cognizant of removing her ring when she’s doing more active activities? How devastated would either/both of you be if the diamond chipped?

This is helpful to consider. I am sure neither of us would be happy if the diamond chipped from ordinary course wear. I also know she is totally fine with not wearing it in certain circumstances (e.g., workout classes, etc.).

I've shared some examples of both styles with DK to get their opinion on it as well. This is one design detail I feel less strongly about, especially if I know they'll be able to make the prongs very low profile and unobtrusive.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would likely ask Amy her recommendation and pros and cons. She has made so many settings like this she likely knows the ins and outs best. I would err towards whatever offers a little more protection as damaging such a treasure would be horrible!

On that note, a ring like this I would recommend putting it on when leaving the house and taking it off when you get home, and never ever wearing it when doing work with the hands — house work, cooking, gym, lifting/carrying. Diamonds can chip and settings can be damaged from all these activities. A fine, large diamond ring like this must be cared for and treated like the treasure that it is. Perhaps if she wants a more workhorse piece of jewelry she can add it to her collection later!

 

[RX1990]

Latest rendering below!

The tabbed prongs have been made slightly narrower. I am happy with this width on them. I think it's a good balance of protection but leaving just the slightest amount of the clipped corners exposed. Amy also assured me the setter will clip them down and make them very dainty.

I think we are nearly there on the design. I asked them to re-run the rendering below with the side and shank stones ~20% smaller like the original CAD model. After seeing the latest CAD, I am a little concerned the side and shank stones are a little too large now. My biggest concern is them making the mounting less dainty.

Any opinions on bringing the size down on the side and shank stones? I am trying to err on the side of being a little more dainty/delicate with the ring given her preferences and the inspiration ring I know she loves. I don't need proportions to be an exact match, I just don't want larger side and shank stones taking away from the delicate nature of the ring design. We both love French cuts, so I want them to be just a little bit obvious!

For reference, I've reattached a few photos of her wearing the inspiration ring to give some alternative angles/perspectives on the side and shank stones vs. the center stone and overall mounting.

 

[lulu_ma]

Oh late to the party, but I was just able to track down these pics as an alternative-double petite tabs:



But I do think the minimal streamlined single tabs would look fab, too.

Also, the side stones look daintier in the inspo ring than in the current cad drawing.

 

[BlingDreams]

Latest rendering below!

The tabbed prongs have been made slightly narrower. I am happy with this width on them. I think it's a good balance of protection but leaving just the slightest amount of the clipped corners exposed. Amy also assured me the setter will clip them down and make them very dainty.

I think we are nearly there on the design. I asked them to re-run the rendering below with the side and shank stones ~20% smaller like the original CAD model. After seeing the latest CAD, I am a little concerned the side and shank stones are a little too large now. My biggest concern is them making the mounting less dainty.

Any opinions on bringing the size down on the side and shank stones? I am trying to err on the side of being a little more dainty/delicate with the ring given her preferences and the inspiration ring I know she loves. I don't need proportions to be an exact match, I just don't want larger side and shank stones taking away from the delicate nature of the ring design. We both love French cuts, so I want them to be just a little bit obvious!

For reference, I've reattached a few photos of her wearing the inspiration ring to give some alternative angles/perspectives on the side and shank stones vs. the center stone and overall mounting.

I love the size of the new tabbed prongs. I think they are perfection. As for the side stones, I still feel like these are the ones that will best complement the size of your center stone. They are petite and not in competition with the main diamond, yet are still able to be appreciated. I think what might be throwing you off is how much of the metal is showing in the CAD/rendering designs. If you take away that extra metal… which will be done when they mount the stones, and do the final polishing… it is a much more delicate look. As you might have expected, I’ve gone ahead and done a mock up for you. Feel free to send it to Amy for her confirmation, but I believe that the design on the right is more like what the finish product will look like. Looking at the modified image, do you still feel that the side stones are too large?



Also, remember that you’re looking at these designs in MACRO . So pinch them down to where they’re “life size” and see if you still feel the same. Again, here’s a comparison for you.



Last collage… the inspo ring and the modified rendering. Obviously the center stones are different dimensions so it can’t be an exact one to one comparison, so I used the size of the shanks as reference to make them as exact in proportions as possible. What I mean by that is that the shanks and side stones should be exact to scale, even though the center stones are different. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[oldcutclubmember]

Latest rendering below!

The tabbed prongs have been made slightly narrower. I am happy with this width on them. I think it's a good balance of protection but leaving just the slightest amount of the clipped corners exposed. Amy also assured me the setter will clip them down and make them very dainty.

I think we are nearly there on the design. I asked them to re-run the rendering below with the side and shank stones ~20% smaller like the original CAD model. After seeing the latest CAD, I am a little concerned the side and shank stones are a little too large now. My biggest concern is them making the mounting less dainty.

Any opinions on bringing the size down on the side and shank stones? I am trying to err on the side of being a little more dainty/delicate with the ring given her preferences and the inspiration ring I know she loves. I don't need proportions to be an exact match, I just don't want larger side and shank stones taking away from the delicate nature of the ring design. We both love French cuts, so I want them to be just a little bit obvious!

For reference, I've reattached a few photos of her wearing the inspiration ring to give some alternative angles/perspectives on the side and shank stones vs. the center stone and overall mounting.

I like the tab prong size and the proportion of the side stones to the center stone. However, I would ask for CADs with just the shank going back to the original (20% smaller). What was the mm of the original shank at the widest point and what was the mm of the band at the narrowest?

 

[Kim N]

Following because this is going to be spectacular. The diamond is stunning.

 

[Rfisher]

We both love French cuts, so I want them to be just a little bit obvious!

DKJ has access to a few types of different flavors. Like high dome vs low dome, or recut from princess that has different facet pattern.
If this matters to you - ask what your options are.


I’m glad to see that the shoulder trailing groove that @BlingDreams pointed out (so little but so important! ) has been addressed in the CAD as well. Leaving it as a hand applied item sounds nice, but didn’t pan out well in a prior attempt of mine.

This ring will be gorgeous! I love where you are taking it.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

I thought at first that the longer tab prongs would accentuate the corners better but based on the photos of other rings, the shorter tab prongs actually seem to preserve more of the octagon shape.

Agree that the bigger side stones look better.

FWIW the height comes across larger than it will feel in real life because like @BlingDreams said, you are looking at it in macro.

 

[RX1990]

I love the size of the new tabbed prongs. I think they are perfection. As for the side stones, I still feel like these are the ones that will best complement the size of your center stone. They are petite and not in competition with the main diamond, yet are still able to be appreciated. I think what might be throwing you off is how much of the metal is showing in the CAD/rendering designs. If you take away that extra metal… which will be done when they mount the stones, and do the final polishing… it is a much more delicate look. As you might have expected, I’ve gone ahead and done a mock up for you. Feel free to send it to Amy for her confirmation, but I believe that the design on the right is more like what the finish product will look like. Looking at the modified image, do you still feel that the side stones are too large?



Also, remember that you’re looking at these designs in MACRO . So pinch them down to where they’re “life size” and see if you still feel the same. Again, here’s a comparison for you.



Last collage… the inspo ring and the modified rendering. Obviously the center stones are different dimensions so it can’t be an exact one to one comparison, so I used the size of the shanks as reference to make them as exact in proportions as possible. What I mean by that is that the shanks and side stones should be exact to scale, even though the center stones are different. Hopefully that makes sense.

Thank you for this!!! This is an incredibly helpful visual. I totally follow everything you said. I asked Amy to re-run the CAD and render with the smaller side and shank stones in the same format so I can compare the two side by side in the latest design. I think once I have that I should be able to decide and move forward with this.

I am not 100% decided either way yet. Trying to find the balance between the side stones being substantial enough to be seen/appreciated and proportionate to the center stone while also not making the overall ring too much bigger/chunkier than the inspo ring. My fear is if they are too small, they'll just look silly and get lost with such a statement center stone. If they are too large, I fear they completely change the daintiness of the mounting and make the ring look a lot bigger.

 

[RX1990]

I like the tab prong size and the proportion of the side stones to the center stone. However, I would ask for CADs with just the shank going back to the original (20% smaller). What was the mm of the original shank at the widest point and what was the mm of the band at the narrowest?

I am asking for the CAD model backup of the latest render I posted above (with all the measurements). Also asked her to provide me with the CAD model with measurements plus render image of the alternative version with smaller side stones.

Below is the first original CAD. Does not appear to include width at widest point of shank. Original model had with tapering to 1.8mm on palm. I had her change that to taper to 2.0mm on palm based on initial feedback here (Amy also agreed this was a good change for durability reasons).