Choices choices...

[Haven]

Ladies, you're all very kind but all I did was draw a bunch of swooping lines!
I'm excited to see Dreamer's inspiration rings so I'll have some new things to draw. Whenever I need a break from work I like to create something with my hands, so this is a good project for that!

A wedding band won't sit flush with this design, no. I also changed my opinion on this issue, MissGR--I was adamant that my first set sit flush, and then I was adamant that my upgrade have a gap. Ah, time, how it changes so many things.

I think we could design a really killer chunky three-stone like nobody's ever seen before! I'm going to do some sketching while DH and I stay in and watch a movie tonight.

 

[happybear]

Haven, you are brilliant!
Your design is so well-thought. I really can't wait to see the final piece. Meanwhile, I will diligently follow this topic and get inspirations from you!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Haven, you have found your second calling in jewelry design! I love option B for the ring.

DD - chunky settings can be nice but I think the stones can get lost in the metal - if you know what I mean. A more delicate setting or a straight up setting with clean lines tends to show the stones better IMO and while a nice setting is great, it's all about the stones!!

As for whether a band can sit flush, I would hope the answer is no. I'm really changing my taste in that area - I love a small gap although my set doesn't have it. That's the major reason I would consider resetting my three stone into something that would produce a gap. I think then you get the full advantage of being able to see the ering and the wedding ring.

Can't wait to see where and how this ends up - so far, so good!

I agree about the chunky look. I don't think I want a chunky three stone at all! I have never seen one I think is beautiful.

I think that the design that haven has suggested is awesome. When I saw her ring I loved it and thought "I wonder if it can be changed for a three stone?"

And I like a gap too!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Ladies, you're all very kind but all I did was draw a bunch of swooping lines!
I'm excited to see Dreamer's inspiration rings so I'll have some new things to draw. Whenever I need a break from work I like to create something with my hands, so this is a good project for that!

A wedding band won't sit flush with this design, no. I also changed my opinion on this issue, MissGR--I was adamant that my first set sit flush, and then I was adamant that my upgrade have a gap. Ah, time, how it changes so many things.

I think we could design a really killer chunky three-stone like nobody's ever seen before! I'm going to do some sketching while DH and I stay in and watch a movie tonight.

Girl if you can come up with a ring that has a thicker more substantail band but also showcases the diamonds and looks original, then I am all for it! I really do not have inspiration photos, I have looked and looked and nothing strikes me. As I said to MGR, I actually think the two looks are not compatible. Chunky looks dope on a solitaire (IMO) and gives such a great hand presence in part because so much metal shows on the finger. But then you make it a three stone and almost be definition less metal shows, and the small side stones means that a chunkier shank does not really work. The BEST example of a chunkier three stone I have seen is Coati's cushion shaped bezel three stone, but that design works best I think with smaller stones, similar sizes. And I don't like bezels as a rule on my hand as I like to see more of my diamonds and clean them easily.

I think that I need to focus on the three-stone look I want and focus on getting the *elements* I want which still making a good looking three-stone ring. That means, I think, a more delicate setting so the diamonds are the star. The design you posted is really lovely, and I think that making the shank more like 2.5 mm wide and a good 2mm thick, totally rounded all the way around and high domed comfort fit, paired with a similar band, would accomplish a lot in terms of giving that *round* full look I like on my hand. And the uniqueness and originality I want would come form the rose gold. I think it could work!

Just need to solve the issue of how the RG shank will meet the WG basket at the side of the shank... I am going to look for some images.

 

[Haven]

I think you can totally make this design with a thicker shank. I actually didn't even realize how thin my new ring was going to be until my jeweler brought it up when we were discussing the design and then we discussed sturdiness, etc. Anyway--my scale is just off when I draw because I'm not an artiste! I'll draw a thicker version to see how it looks.

I drew a closeup of what I envision as one solution to the shank/basket attachment problem:


Here is what I envision it looking like from the top:


Aaaaaand, I had some fun with those ring pictures you posted. I turned them into three-stones:


I had fun with this one, I used that first ring you posted as the model. You could have the stones set askew so the metal would be swoopy and thick like the ring you posted, and you could even use three tones of metal if you wanted to:

Or you could set the stones in line:

Last one:


I know these probably aren't at all your style, but I had a lot of fun drawing them!

ETA: I don't know why the "option d" rings are flipped sideways, I can't get them to behave.

 

[Haven]

Okay, here are some ideas about modifying "Option b" to make it thicker:
- How do you feel about losing those bars around each stone? If we ditch those, then you can make the shank (and thus the curls) thicker, and bring them up higher along the side of the center stone.
- IF you lose the bars around the stone, how about altering the connection between the shank and the sidestones by giving it a three-way split, and having the center piece attach right to the prong, itself?
- If you do this, I propose adding a bar of platinum beneath the three basket to connect them, for strength.

I drew pictures to illustrate:



I think this could work by eliminating some of the design elements and making room for thicker metal on the prongs and shank. My own ring is quite sturdy, and the rose gold is attached by that little piece of center shank on each side, and then the curls that reach around the stone are soldered to the prongs on either side. I think these changes would give you more room on the sides of the stones for thicker metal. Leaving those bars around the stones might take up too much real estate along the sides of the diamonds to fit the actual curls there. AND, this version looks more like jbEG's Sophie, which I know you like.

ETA: The "Top view--no stones" isn't technically incorrect. The RG curls would wrap under the prongs and they wouldn't stick out the way I have them drawn. The "bottom view" is more correct in that regard.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I think you can totally make this design with a thicker shank. I actually didn't even realize how thin my new ring was going to be until my jeweler brought it up when we were discussing the design and then we discussed sturdiness, etc. Anyway--my scale is just off when I draw because I'm not an artiste! I'll draw a thicker version to see how it looks.

I drew a closeup of what I envision as one solution to the shank/basket attachment problem:


Here is what I envision it looking like from the top:

Yes, I think that is the simplest solution to have the RG sort of curve around the baskets, like hugging them, but not he most fluid to look at from that angle perhaps? The scale would be different with my stones, as they are so small, if the RG swooped up the right way and the baskets for the sides were nestled into the split it could work! A CAD to scale from the eventual jewler would likely make a difference to imagining this, eh?

Aaaaaand, I had some fun with those ring pictures you posted. I turned them into three-stones:

Now that I really like! It reminds me of a Durnell ring I really like (attached below). I also tried a solitaire with a semi-bezel and the same pave detail that was really gorgeous. I am not sure about pave, though, with my J color stones and also for wearability, but it sure is purdy! How do you think something like that would look without pave? I was thinking about a design like this today, too, and imagining a WG seat for each stone, and a slight lip of gold around the opening, and then WG prongs, but the rest being RG. The more I think about it, the more I am liking this one. It is a lot like the Bondanza you posted (which I have admired by the way), but it could be make more delicately -- perhaps with a shank that tapers from about 3.5mm by the stones down to about 2mm between the fingers. There is a Sholdt that has a prifile I like... see next post.

I had fun with this one, I used that first ring you posted as the model. You could have the stones set askew so the metal would be swoopy and thick like the ring you posted, and you could even use three tones of metal if you wanted to:

Or you could set the stones in line:

Very fun! I think it is not me, but it looks really lovely!

Last one:

That has a real vintage feel to it! Totally lovely. Same "issues" for me with the pave though. Maybe when I don't have little kids and want to baby my rings more I will go that direction. But now I think I want to avoid pave (I know the examples had pave, but that was not my fault )

So much fun Haven!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Here is what I am thinking about the Option 3, based off a Sholdt I have always liked and also incorporating elements of the Bondanza...

 

[Haven]

Dreamer said:
-----------------
Now that I really like! It reminds me of a Durnell ring I really like (attached below). I also tried a solitaire with a semi-bezel and the same pave detail that was really gorgeous. I am not sure about pave, though, with my J color stones and also for wearability, but it sure is purdy! How do you think something like that would look without pave? I was thinking about a design like this today, too, and imagining a WG seat for each stone, and a slight lip of gold around the opening, and then WG prongs, but the rest being RG. The more I think about it, the more I am liking this one. It is a lot like the Bondanza you posted (which I have admired by the way), but it could be make more delicately -- perhaps with a shank that tapers from about 3.5mm by the stones down to about 2mm between the fingers. There is a Sholdt that has a prifile I like... see next post.
-----------------
I think the ring might be a bit plain without the pave, but what about engraving of some sort?
I do like the idea of a tapered shank, I think that would do a lot to make the setting more elegant.

I really like the idea of the WG seat for each stone with a lip of gold around the opening. That idea reminds me of Love Street's ring (or is it Wintotty's?) with the yellow gold on one edge of the setting. I can't seem to find either thread right now, but I'll post the ring when I can find it.

I really like the last setting you posted and turned into a three-stone. I'm particularly fond of the contrast between the u-prong in the center and the v-shaped prongs on the side stones.

I was just having fun with all these drawings so thank you for indulging me! You know my style is really soft and delicate, so it was a blast to look at more substantial rings and draw them.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Okay, here are some ideas about modifying "Option b" to make it thicker:
- How do you feel about losing those bars around each stone? If we ditch those, then you can make the shank (and thus the curls) thicker, and bring them up higher along the side of the center stone.
- IF you lose the bars around the stone, how about altering the connection between the shank and the sidestones by giving it a three-way split, and having the center piece attach right to the prong, itself?
- If you do this, I propose adding a bar of platinum beneath the three basket to connect them, for strength.

I drew pictures to illustrate:

OK, I like the open side, it is much nicer and easy to keep clean . I wonder, if the third prong on the basket was made into a sort of upside down V, mirroring the split in the shank, this might solve the issue of the RG and WG meeting where the shank splits. Like in the drawing below.

 

[Haven]

By Jove, I think you've got it!
Yes! That would really work! The split shank could then attach to the prongs near the bottom of the ring, which would be much nicer, and I love the way that upside-down V looks. Well done.

I like the more open look too, especially for a three-stone. I love my ring, but it is a pain to clean!

ETA: Who's going to make this ring for you, by the way? Do you have a vendor in mind?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Haven, you are indulging me! haha... why aren't you out being a swinging young woman with no kids tonight?

I think in the modified Sholdt I would try to keep the baskets more similar, rather than contrasting. I like a soft V opening, not a full U. But I really like the open sides to see the diamonds. I think that ring is a good inspiration for how I would want the baskets to be on my ring, whatever the rest of the dressing ends up being.

I do like the Sophie solitiare from JBEG and the profile of this most recent iteration is looking more like that. I just wonder, by thickening the curls on the last design and losing the cross bars on the baskets, and thus losing the curls on the side stones, is the ring losing some of its charm? Is there a way to lost the cross bars, keep the inverted V prong where the shank splits, but still include curls on the side stones? Without it getting too busy?

re: cleaning -- I am getting a Jewel Jet steamer.

 

[Dreamer_D]

ETA: Who's going to make this ring for you, by the way? Do you have a vendor in mind?

Not yet. I would be going with CAD most likely. I am meeting a local jewler next week to see what they might be able to do, otherwise I will likely get in touch with WF and BGD and go from there. I would prefer someone local, though, because I would like to be able to see a wax and try in on for custom, I think it would make me feel a lot more confident.

 

[Haven]

Oh well, we are quite the happening young couple--we went and worked out at 7:30, ate a quick dinner, rented a DVD to watch at home, and . . . DH promptly fell asleep. That's okay, I was very happy to get back to my ring sketching.

I also prefer the v opening, it's a bit more elegant. For some reason I always think of open fish mouths whenever I see u-shaped prongs. I can't even begin to consider why that is, but it is. That's not to say I don't like the u-prongs, because I do, I just also happen to think they're evocative of open fish mouths.

I bet you could keep the curls on the side stones, for sure. I only took them out because I got the feeling you might prefer that, so back in they go! I'll do up another sketch tomorrow. You have unleashed a beast! Ring drawings are fun because they're so fast, and I like having to figure out how all of the elements will fit together, and what they'll look like from the bottom. I'm excited that you want the extra curls, I think they're purdy.

I'm considering a Jewel Jet, myself. I'm really tiring of the baby toothbrush I've been using, and to be honest I haven't cleaned my ring in a week because of it.

I completely understand that you'd want to use a local jeweler for a custom piece. I'm that rare PSer who really loves her local jeweler, so I totally "get" it. It's also really nice to be able to pop in whenever you need to *just in case.* And, to pop in just to see the big projects they have going on, too.

I'm very excited about your ring, however it turns out! I'll go back to the drawing board tomorrow. Maybe some other people will chime in with ideas, too.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I'm not sure how this local jeweler will stack up, but so far so good. I need to see some examples of their work to really know how I feel about it, so far I have only seen some computer mock ups of designs.

This may be a scenerio again in my life where I am not ready to commit to a custom piece because of the cost involved and uncertainty around design I don't *really* want to spend more than about $1500, so custom is likely out of the question, though it is nice to dream. In a sense, I might just need at this point a simple basket setting a la my original option 1 to get a feel for the three stone, whether it is the style for me, and to make sure I love the proportions of my side stones with my center stone. If I enjoy that simple setting for 2 years it will have been worth it, especially since I like change and doubt this will be a "forever" setting or anythng.

 

[Haven]

I like change too, so I can relate.

I suppose I have no idea how much custom settings really cost. I think my setting ended up costing us $2500, but I could be a bit off. I'm sure DH will remember, I can ask him when he wakes up. I imagine people might think it was a bit high, but for me it was worth it because it was made by a jeweler we know and trust, and I knew I could show him my design ideas and he'd turn them into a beautiful piece of jewelry. I've also never owned a piece of hand forged jewelry, either, so I was excited about that part of it too once he told me they were going to hand forge the ring.

I happen to like the simple settings, myself. jbEG just posted a very simple solitaire setting for an AVC, and I think it's gorgeous. If you go for a stock setting and choose to change it in the future that will be the perfect opportunity to get some colored stones and set them into the stock setting!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would love a hand forged piece one day too! And if it was my dream setting that I would keep for a while, I would save up and would not have trouble spending what you spent or more.

But this whole setting thing started when I got thinking about a gift to celebrate the birth of our second child, and I thought, "well geeze, for my modest budget, I could set my diamonds in a three-stone!" And if it is not my dream three stone, who cares because at least I get to enjoy the diamonds on my finger while I save and decide what I might want to do longer term! So sort of a temporary three-stone I guess I am just not ready to commit at this point, I think, and certainly not ready to spend what we would need to spend to get a truly magnificent setting!

 

[slg47]

I would love a hand forged piece one day too! And if it was my dream setting that I would keep for a while, I would save up and would not have trouble spending what you spent or more.

But this whole setting thing started when I got thinking about a gift to celebrate the birth of our second child, and I thought, "well geeze, for my modest budget, I could set my diamonds in a three-stone!" And if it is not my dream three stone, who cares because at least I get to enjoy the diamonds on my finger while I save and decide what I might want to do longer term! So sort of a temporary three-stone I guess I am just not ready to commit at this point, I think, and certainly not ready to spend what we would need to spend to get a truly magnificent setting!

dreamer I would definitely get some quotes? The BGD trellis setting is $1275/$1375 in WG, so a custom piece might not be that much more?

as a side note I do not like how the BGD trellis settings have an abrupt switch from YG/RG to WG...the way Haven did hers is much nicer!

 

[pixies]

I would love a hand forged piece one day too! And if it was my dream setting that I would keep for a while, I would save up and would not have trouble spending what you spent or more.

But this whole setting thing started when I got thinking about a gift to celebrate the birth of our second child, and I thought, "well geeze, for my modest budget, I could set my diamonds in a three-stone!" And if it is not my dream three stone, who cares because at least I get to enjoy the diamonds on my finger while I save and decide what I might want to do longer term! So sort of a temporary three-stone I guess I am just not ready to commit at this point, I think, and certainly not ready to spend what we would need to spend to get a truly magnificent setting!

dreamer I would definitely get some quotes? The BGD trellis setting is $1275/$1375 in WG, so a custom piece might not be that much more?

as a side note I do not like how the BGD trellis settings have an abrupt switch from YG/RG to WG...the way Haven did hers is much nicer!

I agree. I'd ask for a few quotes, you may be surprised! Back in October when I was gathering quotes for my three stone BGD came in around $1500 for 18k WG custom setting. They came in at the lowest price of the vendors I contacted (BGD, JbEG, Leon, & Singlestone) I know gold has gone up since then, but that's not too much higher than the price of a stock setting.

 

[Haven]

I wouldn't want to spend much unless I was completely committed, so I totally understand where you're coming from.

Just because I don't like an unfinished project, I drew up the "final" version of the ring with your modifications. I can't tell you how much fun I had doing this, so thanks for letting me play along!

Behold, The Dreamer D.

 

[Haven]

Well that's not very easy to see. I broke it up into two files, let's see if this is better.

 

[Dreamer_D]

haven, you captured the side profile perfectly! Looking at it, I thought that there were a couple tweaks I would do. I think somehow the cross bars on the basket make it look more finished, because it makes the curls look like they embellish the ring rather than hanging in the air. And I thickened the shank a little just for proportions. And I removed the little bead/diamond on the center stone -- I think without such a detail on the sides it looks a little more fluid without that element. I do wonder still if the side baskets look a little unfinished? I messed around with adding a second curl to the outer baskets, but I think it got too busy. This is not really to scale, and a CAD would give a better impression -- I think those side stones are really teensy in relation to the rest of the ring, so a single curl is better.

What do you think of these tweaks?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would love a hand forged piece one day too! And if it was my dream setting that I would keep for a while, I would save up and would not have trouble spending what you spent or more.

But this whole setting thing started when I got thinking about a gift to celebrate the birth of our second child, and I thought, "well geeze, for my modest budget, I could set my diamonds in a three-stone!" And if it is not my dream three stone, who cares because at least I get to enjoy the diamonds on my finger while I save and decide what I might want to do longer term! So sort of a temporary three-stone I guess I am just not ready to commit at this point, I think, and certainly not ready to spend what we would need to spend to get a truly magnificent setting!

dreamer I would definitely get some quotes? The BGD trellis setting is $1275/$1375 in WG, so a custom piece might not be that much more?

as a side note I do not like how the BGD trellis settings have an abrupt switch from YG/RG to WG...the way Haven did hers is much nicer!

I agree. I'd ask for a few quotes, you may be surprised! Back in October when I was gathering quotes for my three stone BGD came in around $1500 for 18k WG custom setting. They came in at the lowest price of the vendors I contacted (BGD, JbEG, Leon, & Singlestone) I know gold has gone up since then, but that's not too much higher than the price of a stock setting.

I think I will do that!

 

[Haven]

Nice tweaking! I think the cross bars will also help strengthen the ring, which is a good thing, and I agree that the curls on the side stones look better with something behind them. They do look a bit lost in space without anything there. AND, I think they will give the ring more heft, which you'll like.

I think more curls on those side stones might make it a bit busy, especially since those side stones are so small, but it would be worth checking out if you do have this design made. They would have to be very thin, probably as thin as the curls on my center stone, so I'm not sure if you'd like them that way.

I like the idea of removing the little surprise stone, especially if you want thicker curls there, that will make more room for the curl element.

The proportions are SO off that it will be really interesting to see a proper CAD of this design if you ever choose to pursue it. I realize now that the "bottom view, no stones" drawing that I made is off, the rose gold curls will rest on the prongs. Ah, well, it's at least a semi-accurate representation of what that view would be like. I have a hard time imagining how the ring will work unless I draw out those angles.

 

[Dreamer_D]

OK, quote requests sent off!

 

[softly softly]

Just wondering if you've thought of something like this?

 

[kelpie]

Have you checked with your local benchman? I think you can get custom for cheaper. My custom 3 stone ring at avatar in 18k was well under 1k made by my local jeweler (huntcountry.com) and I also provided all stones. I really believe it makes a huge difference in how refined a piece looks if you have a setting made just for your stones. A simple setting like that shouldn't cost so much in 14k.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Just wondering if you've thought of something like this?

I have softly, but I am not a far on the 4 prongs on the outer stones generally, and the thickness of the shank, while very appealing, would not likely work with my size side stones, which are about 4.5mm. I think 3mm would be the widest I could go? And even then I am not sure how it would look.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Have you checked with your local benchman? I think you can get custom for cheaper. My custom 3 stone ring at avatar in 18k was well under 1k made by my local jeweler (huntcountry.com) and I also provided all stones. I really believe it makes a huge difference in how refined a piece looks if you have a setting made just for your stones. A simple setting like that shouldn't cost so much in 14k.

It would be a custome piece made for my stones in the Options provided, but I agree, that is a high price for 14k. I am checking with a local bench tomorrow! But I am pretty sure it will still be pricier than online based on past experience.