*Critique my CADs: 2-ct. ACA Pendant Re-set*

[starryeyed]

I am re-setting my 2.008-carat Whiteflash ACA G VS2 diamond pendant into a new custom PT950 setting. Here is the original thread for design ideas:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-me-re-set-my-2-carat-aca-rb-diamond-pendant.202191/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-me-re-set-my-2-carat-aca-rb-diamond-pendant.202191/[/URL]

Here are the CADs from WF for the re-set. The base is broad on purpose to help minimize downward tilt. However, Leon felt the diamond may still tilt. He suggested 2 possibilities:

1. Placing 2 small rings inside the gallery rails to further minimize tilt, but he thought tilt still may happen.

2. Changing prong orientation to 12, 3, 6 & 9 o'clock positions and run the chain thru a different section.

What do you think? Is the side profile view too square? If not, what about adding some cutwork to the base for added weight?



ETA: The chain in this picture is schematic only. I am considering a DBTY chain with my leftover 7-point melee from my pear re-set. Only a few melee, maybe 8 total.

 

[starryeyed]

Anyone?

 

[Dreamer_D]

It sure looks pretty but I suspect it's going to tilt all over the place. I don't know if there is a solution for that in a solitaire like that...some type of ail or drop??

 

[decodelighted]

I'm not sure what it gains over the original? Hmmm. It does look a bit blocky from the one angle. But swoopier from another. Hard to say!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The stone needs to be set lower. The culet should be as close to the base as possible without touching. Making it lower will help.

 

[starryeyed]

It sure looks pretty but I suspect it's going to tilt all over the place. I don't know if there is a solution for that in a solitaire like that...some type of ail or drop??

Hi Dreamer.

Yes, I'm trying to not get dismayed. I was trying to avoid a bail. However, I wouldn't be opposed if the bail were another diamond, like mcblohe's RB pendant that has a diagonal-set princess for the bail. I was thinking about another shape, but not sure what might work.

 

[starryeyed]

I'm not sure what it gains over the original? Hmmm. It does look a bit blocky from the one angle. But swoopier from another. Hard to say!

Hi decodelighted !

Haven't seen you in a while. Thanks for chiming in!

I want a configuration that showcases the diamond, while allowing it to slide and not allowing it to flip.

I observe the same as you - hard to tell. Hmm.

 

[starryeyed]

The stone needs to be set lower. The culet should be as close to the base as possible without touching. Making it lower will help.

Yes! I agree. This is actually the second set of CADs. The diamond was even higher in the first set. The first set of CADs had a bail too. I had requested the diamond be set low in the base for this second set, so maybe this is as low as it can go while still getting the sliding chain?

How many CAD-iterations do you think might be reasonable? I don't want to be a PIA.

Should I scrap this and just use a second diamond as a bail? If so, what shape?

 

[starryeyed]

Here is the updated CADs from WF. What do you think? I'm wondering about:

1. How will the rounded square back actually look? Will it makes the diamond look more cushion-shaped?

2. There are the small rings the chain slides through and a matching set on the bottom. Should those matching rings (that don't have the chain running through them) have small round melee set in them? Or a colored diamond/stone? Is that overkill?

3. Do the small round rings (that don't have a chain) protrude too much at the corner? I'm concerned about that last image in the set of 4.

 

[sunkissedx3]

Here is the updated CADs from WF. What do you think? I'm wondering about:

1. How will the rounded square back actually look? Will it makes the diamond look more cushion-shaped?

2. There are the small rings the chain slides through and a matching set on the bottom. Should those matching rings (that don't have the chain running through them) have small round melee set in them? Is that overkill?

3. Do the small round rings (that don't have a chain) protrude too much at the corner? I'm concerned about that last image in the set of 4.

1. I don't think the diamond will look cushion since you wouldn't be able to see the back when looking from the front. Could it be made rounder if you're concerned? It looks rounder in the first set of pictures, but more square with the addition of the rings. I noticed the rings are tipped slightly inwards and joins the base a little bit in from the edge so if the rings can tip inwards even more at the base, then you could have a round back. With rings set wider (cushion back) I think it's supposed to offer more stability, like the pendant would be able to hang more vertical freely, and moving the rings in to make a circle back may cause the pendant to tip forwards at the top when hanging freely, but I don't think it will matter when worn on the neck since the base would be against the skin.

2. I don't think they should be set with melee since there are already melees in the center of each side. Also, if you leave them open, would that give you the option of putting the chain through diagonally? Not sure if the chain would fit in that way... Maybe it's a bad idea because the pendant would be more likely to flip... Anyways, you could omit the rings from the bottom and just have one set for the chain to go through at the top.

3. see 1. tilt in more at bottom.

Hope that helps

 

[starryeyed]

Thanks for your input sunkissed! Yes, I agree that the rounded square back is to help with the flipping issue - you are correct that the squarish back is different than that in the first set of CADs. I will ask that the rings be tucked in a bit to make sure the corner is not accentuated. Also, round the corner a little more as part of the refining process.

I requested that the diamond be set as low as possible, so I think the proportions may have changed slightly, and the chain will not fit diagonally.

My DH thought 2 colored stones/diamonds in the corners would add a whimsical touch, but I'm not sure that would look right. I wondered about omitting the bottom rings too, but I think they may help to balance the pendant?

Getting the flipping under control has been a major design emphasis!

 

[Tekate]

Starryeyed! I love your new setting, love it.. it's very beautiful and I think without the two chains to confuse the eye, your stone will be magnificent.. wish it were mine

 

[momhappy]

I actually prefer the current setting - the two chains are delicate and unique.

 

[starryeyed]

Starryeyed! I love your new setting, love it.. it's very beautiful and I think without the two chains to confuse the eye, your stone will be magnificent.. wish it were mine

Thanks Tekate! I hope this helps with the flipping, the traveling up my neck, and the overall unimpressive look.

Any thoughts on the colored stones/diamonds in the underside loops?

 

[starryeyed]

I actually prefer the current setting - the two chains are delicate and unique.

Yes, I thought the same until I wore it for a while. I'm glad I had the 2 chains when my daughter was smaller and would hang off of it (!!), but they just got twisted and didn't look great.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the latest version looks much better! I don't really see any reason to put melee in the little holes. They will hardly be seen in real life. I think it is going to take trying it to see if it works. That is the only problem with going with an original design. I think it looks like it will sit flat better, but until you wear it, you won't really know for sure. (Been there, done that!)

 

[starryeyed]

I think the latest version looks much better! I don't really see any reason to put melee in the little holes. They will hardly be seen in real life. I think it is going to take trying it to see if it works. That is the only problem with going with an original design. I think it looks like it will sit flat better, but until you wear it, you won't really know for sure. (Been there, done that!)

Thanks DS. You are so right, but let's hope this works. I'll be sure to report back.

 

[momhappy]

I actually prefer the current setting - the two chains are delicate and unique.

Yes, I thought the same until I wore it for a while. I'm glad I had the 2 chains when my daughter was smaller and would hang off of it (!!), but they just got twisted and didn't look great.

Ah, I see. In that case, the re-set is lovely and I can't wait to see the finished product