DK/BGD Custom Setting...The Home Stretch

[blueMA]

I find odd is that several people here, including yourself, has suggested platinum is the stronger metal choice. Amy @ DK has a difference of opinion on the strength. I find that odd. She doesn't mention cost or the shiny factor when we've spoken, but strength & durability.

Read these (and google for more):
https://www.jewelry-secrets.com/Blog/can-you-scratch-platinum/
https://platinumjewelry.com/buying-tips/pure-secure-strength-beauty-platinum-prongs/

What Amy probably means is that the gold alloy is harder and resists scratch.
However, you'll almost never hear a platinum prong breaking off, and it never thins out.

 

[TreeScientist]

Read these (and google for more):
https://www.jewelry-secrets.com/Blog/can-you-scratch-platinum/
https://platinumjewelry.com/buying-tips/pure-secure-strength-beauty-platinum-prongs/

What Amy probably means is that the gold alloy is harder and resists scratch.
However, you'll almost never hear a platinum prong breaking off, and it never thins out.

While I certainly don't have anywhere near the level of experience that DK has in regards to setting design, I also have only heard good things about platinum, particularly with regards to its excellent resistance to chipping and "thinning" at the prongs and underside of the ring that gold alloys often suffer from. Then again, I don't know if this new white gold/palladium alloy mix is different in that regard, but I've seen quite a few gold rings that look extremely thin at the bottom of the shank from years of wear.

Also be aware that not all platinum is created equal. 900 Pt/Ir or 950 Pt/Ru are the best alloys for their hardness and resistance to deformation. 950 Pt/Ir, while easy for jewelers to work with, is rubbish in that it is way too soft for rings. I think most of the negative reports of platinum settings suffering from bent prongs, etc. were probably due to it being a cheap Plat setting made from 950 Pt/Ir. See this link for a description of he different Plat alloys:

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/platinum_purity.htm

Do you know what platinum alloy DK typically uses?

 

[sledge]

While I certainly don't have anywhere near the level of experience that DK has in regards to setting design, I also have only heard good things about platinum, particularly with regards to its excellent resistance to chipping and "thinning" at the prongs and underside of the ring that gold alloys often suffer from. Then again, I don't know if this new white gold/palladium alloy mix is different in that regard, but I've seen quite a few gold rings that look extremely thin at the bottom of the shank from years of wear.

Also be aware that not all platinum is created equal. 900 Pt/Ir or 950 Pt/Ru are the best alloys for their hardness and resistance to deformation. 950 Pt/Ir, while easy for jewelers to work with, is rubbish in that it is way too soft for rings. I think most of the negative reports of platinum settings suffering from bent prongs, etc. were probably due to it being a cheap Plat setting made from 950 Pt/Ir. See this link for a description of he different Plat alloys:

http://www.mwmjewelry.com/platinum_purity.htm

Do you know what platinum alloy DK typically uses?

Thank you @TreeScientist. I initially brought the metal up as a concern early on in this thread and there was some good info. I am re-posting some of it below.

The short answer to your question is DK will utilize any platinum alloy I desire. And their WG is not a traditional WG/rhodium plate mix but the WG/palladium mixture.

The few that have the WG/palladium seem very satisfied. And @blueMA I was wrong on the price, the WG/palladium alloy is actually $200 cheaper than platinum, but if I want to go with pure palladium it's $100 more expensive than platinum.

I shoved this to the back burner thinking I had more time to decide and the answer would just "magically" drop in my lap. Obviously that didn't happen, and now that crunch time is here I need to make a decision and move forward.

5. I'm leaning towards the WG option, but still a bit uncertain. DK emailed me back and said WG is actually harder and more durable for small prongs. Additionally he states I won't need to replate with him as his gold is made with palladium. If I go platinum, he prefers platinum 950 with ruthenium as it's the hardest but he is willing to use platinum 900 with iridium if I prefer. Lastly, he can also build the ring using palladium. For the main setting, WG is $200 cheaper than platinum, and $100 more expensive in palladium over platinum.

Thank you for the link @JDDN. It's very helpful to see the metals. I do see the difference in colors that you mentioned. I put these together to help me see the differences side by side.

To me, it appears the Plat900/Iridium combo provides a more white shiny and comes with some of the benefits others have mentioned. I do have to assume the pictures below is skewed in the fact I believe the palladium WG that DK provides is plated and I assume the plating would make it more shiny like the regular WG, plated picture.

2 = WG, rhodium plated
3 = Palladium WG, not plated
A = Plat900/Iridium

One more comparison.

2 = WG, rhodium plated
B = Plat950/ruthenium

All she saw was the shiny white look of the rhodium plating, and any and all metal plated including silver will have the same look. I agree that some platinum settings out there look like gun metal grey and not very appealing (probably what she saw), and it really depends on the quality of the metal composition - some will look whiter and some will look more dull.

It is definitely not dull and grey. Not trying to talk you into anything, because ultimately this is a personal choice and I don't think you can go wrong with any of the options.

This is my 14 wg/pal solitaire from DK: https://streamable.com/ez1gr

To my untrained eyes, the second pic looks brighter overall (background included). So when I look at them side by side, the second ring looks brighter and shinier, but that might not necessarily be how it looks IRL. In my personal experience, my platinum e-ring is not nearly as shiny as my white gold wedding ring because of the plating. I have had my wedding ring on for 9 years and am just now getting around to re-plating it. Sure it could have been done sooner, but it certainly wasn't noticeable to anyone who wasn't looking specifically for that. The re-plating is not a factor in my decision making process, but may be for yours. Who knew there were so many decisions to make?!

 

[blueMA]

Tiffany bands are 950 platinum with ruthenium, btw. I have no complaint with my 950 bands and I don't find them too soft, but they do look frosty after years of being banged up.

@TreeScientist makes a good point - as I've mentioned earlier on the thread, some plat combo can look quite gray and dull.

 

[rockysalamander]

Placing this in your lap...I love platinum, but I also don't have any settings personally with this much pave and twisty turny detail. DK is the maker and I'd take his advice on this if she is not in a field with routine contact with lab chemicals.

 

[mrs-b]

@sledge - just to ask - when did you want this ring by?

 

[sledge]

Thank you @rockysalamander. She doesn't work in a lab or with any harsh chemicals. I think you are right, I should probably go with the DK recommendation. Before I fully decide on that I want to have one more conversation with Amy and just make sure we are understanding each other fully.

And @mrs-b I need to have the diamond in my hands by 6/29.

CAD update: Texted with Amy earlier and they are still working on the design. She has her top CAD designer on it. Sounds like it will be tomorrow.

 

[mrs-b]

Thank you @rockysalamander. She doesn't work in a lab or with any harsh chemicals. I think you are right, I should probably go with the DK recommendation. Before I fully decide on that I want to have one more conversation with Amy and just make sure we are understanding each other fully.

And @mrs-b I need to have the diamond in my hands by 6/29.

CAD update: Texted with Amy earlier and they are still working on the design. She has her top CAD designer on it. Sounds like it will be tomorrow.

When you say 'the diamond' you mean the completed ring?

 

[blueMA]

When you say 'the diamond' you mean the completed ring?

yes

 

[sledge]

When you say 'the diamond' you mean the completed ring?

yes

Yes, @blueMA is correct. My BGD stone has been paid for and sitting in Houston in their safe for a little bit of time now. I talked with Lesley today and had them ship it to DK just today. Having the shipping confirmation in my email and anxiously tracking it to ensure it arrives safely. I didn't want to move it until I absolutely had to do so.

As I explained to Amy, I need the e-ring by 6/29. I have elected to push back the matching wedding band so we could focus on the priority and hopefully meet the deadline.

 

[sledge]

Okay, these just arrived. I'm posting now so you guys & gals and can help analyze at the same time as me, since I'm on a time crunch. As always, much appreciate the help.

FYI, my little BGD ball of fire arrived safely in LA.

 

[blueMA]

YES! I think it looks good!!! I can't see it on the cad but I assume there are enough gaps between the shanks to see skin underneath.

 

[blueMA]

Could they put one more (two total) smaller diamond near the start of each swirl?

Also, on the first cad image, the top left channel band edge looks thicker on top than the bottom and the diamonds don't look centered- I'd just point that out to be sure the diamond will be centered properly all across.

 

[sledge]

@blueMA you had some of the same concerns I did. Below is a quick markup I was working on.




To take it one step further I was working on that curve above in purple, but in a different view. See below. Maybe I'm over-thinking that one???



One last thing I was checking was the horizontal lines. Ugh, this one drives me mad. Seems like it should come out like the inspiro. Amy and I talked about this (she was specifically looking at the transparent overlay I did) and she said it never line up the exact same because of different angles, etc. It seems like it should be closer than this, but overall the design doesn't seem wrong. So maybe she is right. It's just maddening as it seems like it should.

 

[blueMA]

To take it one step further I was working on that curve above in purple, but in a different view. See below. Maybe I'm over-thinking that one???

I noticed they didn't raise it but I'd leave it the way it is - I think the start of the swirl getting raised will exposed offset metal and possibly make it look clunky from pave side instead of having a good flow. Like I mentioned before, that'd make the taper junction/terminal end tricky if it goes up in slope - discuss with Amy and see what she says.

but overall the design doesn't seem wrong. So maybe she is right.

I see the brown horizontal line and I think it's fine. The swirl getting flared out also pushed out the start of the diamond pave, so it'd be best to add at least one on each side though.

 

[rockysalamander]

I think with your timeline, you have to really focus on the key issues and take a step back and look at the whole ring as DK presents. I think the inspo is clear in this design and the proportion looks good. I like 99% of this and would not make big changes.

Here are a few details that were not covered by you or @blueMA ...

• I'd ask if they can add one more stone to the bottom of each of the channel and pave band to get them to end at a more natural point. Right now, the end seems a bit high on the shank relative to the bottom of the V where they split.
• There is also a green horizontal line where I have the yellow arrow. I'm not sure if that is a reference line or design line. I'd add the stones to get the channel/pave to that point. Maybe ask DK to add some design lines to "join" the two shanks around the V.
• If you want to reduce the number of stones in the channel, they all need to be bigger. I would not do that personally as I think that will change to proportions here. l like the proportions they have in this version.
• I know you want the pave band to swoop out more but that looks to deviate from your inspiration. The split now looks deliberate and clear. I think further sweeping that curve outward will change the overall feeling of the design and I don't think it will look right. So, I would not pursue your orange line changes.
• Agree with @blueMA's comments.

 

[sledge]

Also, on the first cad image, the top left channel band edge looks thicker on top than the bottom and the diamonds don't look centered- I'd just point that out to be sure the diamond will be centered properly all across.

Can you mark up the drawing so I better understand this?

 

[sledge]

FYI, just talked to Amy and confirmed the following:

• They will completely fill the pave section in with stones, and they will extend to the end of the swirls as we've been discussing. Their computer generation is just for representation purposes only.
• She believes the larger count of channel set stones is the result of the actual ring size vs the smaller one we saw in the store.
• They will extend the diamonds on both the pave & channel set bands down to the horizontal lines that @rockysalamander noted. FYI, the horizontal lines are computer generated only and will not be in the actual ring.
• They did not tilt the swirl up that I drew in red because of the way things meet and the fact all those pave stones are on tilt. Amy does not believe the original was tilted and they do not think it will look right if we change the angle. I am trusting her advise on this.
• I am nixing the orange line changes I did above.
• The prongs won't be an issue when they extend the diamonds in the swirl.
• Amy is building a new wax model of the revised ring & stone and will shoot me pictures tomorrow.
• She mentioned several times how freakin' gorgeous the stone was from BGD, and how they were going to match some super ideals in the melee so it'd be perfect match.

Things I still need a little help with these two items. Amy said diamonds would be centered and hand set so I am not too worried about that. But I am worried about the thickness item. I don't think I am seeing what @blueMA is. Also, I am not sure what @rockysalamander meant by "design lines".

Also, on the first cad image, the top left channel band edge looks thicker on top than the bottom and the diamonds don't look centered- I'd just point that out to be sure the diamond will be centered properly all across.

• There is also a green horizontal line where I have the yellow arrow. I'm not sure if that is a reference line or design line. I'd add the stones to get the channel/pave to that point. Maybe ask DK to add some design lines to "join" the two shanks around the V.

 

[blueMA]

Can you mark up the drawing so I better understand this?

Sorry, away from my PC and can't draw. sad
I just meant the stones on the channel shank don't look centered on the 1st cad image with one edge of the band looking thicker than other. As long as the stones are for presentation only, I'm sure this is a non factor.

 

[rockysalamander]

Also, I am not sure what @rockysalamander meant by "design lines".

I meant they could engrave some detail in that area below the end of each column of diamonds to visually connect the two. But, that is a tiny detail that can be added at any time (or never).

I can see what @blueMA is seeing, but I'm confident it won't remain after finishing. I think the CAD designer just did not shift the center snap for the virtual diamonds for the rendering. What matter is if the channel is the right size and if you ignore that visual, it looks right.

 

[mrs-b]

Sledge - just to be very clear - you're asking DKJ to make your ring in 8 days, tomorrow being the 20th and shipping needing to be done by the 28th.

Your ring is one of many being done by multiple benches. If you want your ring done by the 29th, you need to commit and let this go. You're pushing your time line too hard.

 

[sledge]

Thank you @blueMA and @rockysalamander for the additional follow up on those two outstanding issues. I will mention the thickness to Amy and see what she says. I tend to agree it's an optical illusion, but it needs to be asked.

Also, with the engraving details, I am not sure what you had in mind but some of the stuff I've seen on other rings she didn't care for so I don't think this is a big issue right now either.

And @mrs-b, one of the things Amy and I talked about in depth was the time line. She has committed and moving things on her pace. Upon receiving the revised CAD I responded within 2 hours to her with comments, etc. I feel I am doing things to move the project in a timely manner. She and her team seem committed and the idea of the wax model was HER suggestion. I agree I don't want to weigh down this project with details that don't matter and waste time, but I also don't want to rush the project and have it not be right.

One thing is certain, DK is committed to making me happy. They have mentioned several times, we will love it or they will redo it.

 

[blueMA]

@sledge you're fine. It seems Amy is comfortable with the given timeline and a wax model is absolutely needed for the casting process. As long as the wax model looks correct to Amy, She could probably move on to plastering as soon as the photos checkout.
How exciting!! After months of your slaving over this, you're almost to the finish line!

 

[TreeScientist]

It looks perfect to me!

Keep in mind that CADs are not meant to look like the finished ring. Some metal is lost during the hand finishing and polishing process of the cast ring, so they need to leave enough metal in the cast to maintain structural integrity in the polished ring. People often worry about the CAD or wax model looking chunky, blocky, or slightly off symmetry compared to how they envisioned it, but trust me, I'm sure that Amy as well as DKs setters/finishers know exactly what they're doing.

I think that, given the current CAD and the minor changes you're going to suggest for this final revision, the final polished ring will look pretty darn close to the inspiration. Close, but better, because it will be totally unique and custom.

 

[farrahlyn]

oh, WOW! This iteration looks so good!!!

ITA with rocky's comments on the channel pave, i think it is perfect as is. One of the things i didn't love about the original setting was the channel pave, it was clunky and looked like an afterthought and just didn't match proportion-wise. This is really refined and flows really well with the rest of the setting. Also, ita with the swoop on the pave band, i think it is PERFECT as is. I just love the flow of this CAD, i absolutely cannot wait to see the finished product, you are gonna blow her away with this setting!

 

[sledge]

You all rock. Thank you so much for the final clarifications and words of encouragement. They mean a bunch, and I am grateful.

Looking back over everything, I think I like it as-is taking into consideration that things Amy clarified last night verbally on the phone that I already posted. I think for now I am going to forego the engraving element, although I would like to see some examples later. Maybe she will love it and want to add them. Maybe not, but that can be a decision she makes after the ring is presented.

The thickness element I think I see what you mean. I attached a new drawing trying to illustrate it. I had two thoughts here. First, if you zoom up in the original CAD you will see that it switches from a 2D plane to a 3D plane when it does a twist, so I think this is just an optical illusion. My other thought was that I had forwarded some comments @rockysalamander had mentioned and we talked about adding thickness to the non-pave side of the channel. Maybe Amy tried to pick this up?

Either way, I will verify with Amy this AM when we talk. But I think there is a big enough gap now that we can just center it all as already suggested so there is no uneven thickness (assuming it's really not just an optical illusion).



Edited to Add:
Oh yeah, almost forgot. When I talked with Amy last night, one of the things we talked about was that the CAD almost appeared there was too much of a gap between the swirls & diamond. She said she had noticed that too and part of the reason for doing the wax model was to ensure that element was perfect. She wants zero overlap and just minor separation so it looks fluid.

Also, I had asked her opinion of the ring and if there were any elements we had missed or that she would recommend. She mentioned she was very happy with it all, and feel we took the inspiration and refined it in a manner that has improved it and made it very beautiful. I realize this is probably her job and all that, but the statement stood out to me because early on that was the OVERALL OBJECTIVE of this project.

I am feeling good with where we are. Now I'm just anxious to make sure all the other moving parts and operations go smoothly.

One note of clarification that you can ask about. In the CAD, it looks like the channel stones are smaller than the pave. I think that is throwing off the proportion. You want the lowest channel stone to be the same size or slightly bigger than the lowest pave stone. Then, you want the channel stones to graduate up from there (it looks like the lowest channel is in a 1:1.3 ration to the highest in diameter). I get about 6 stones, but it could be more or less depending on what melee they use.

I had this in my head, but I think it did not come out when I was describing the channel band suggestion.

I tried to draw this below. I made the lowest channel melee the same as the lowest pave melee . Then, graduated up. The yellow line is showing that the extra width for the graduated stone will go on that side. The will make the "twist" of the channel from the top view a bit more pronounced, which is what she likes. {the red line and blue arrow are left-overs}

Also, on the first cad image, the top left channel band edge looks thicker on top than the bottom and the diamonds don't look centered- I'd just point that out to be sure the diamond will be centered properly all across.

Sorry, away from my PC and can't draw. sad
I just meant the stones on the channel shank don't look centered on the 1st cad image with one edge of the band looking thicker than other. As long as the stones are for presentation only, I'm sure this is a non factor.

 

[rockysalamander]

You all rock. Thank you so much for the final clarifications and words of encouragement. They mean a bunch, and I am grateful.

Looking back over everything, I think I like it as-is taking into consideration that things Amy clarified last night verbally on the phone that I already posted. I think for now I am going to forego the engraving element, although I would like to see some examples later. Maybe she will love it and want to add them. Maybe not, but that can be a decision she makes after the ring is presented.

The thickness element I think I see what you mean. I attached a new drawing trying to illustrate it. I had two thoughts here. First, if you zoom up in the original CAD you will see that it switches from a 2D plane to a 3D plane when it does a twist, so I think this is just an optical illusion. My other thought was that I had forwarded some comments @rockysalamander had mentioned and we talked about adding thickness to the non-pave side of the channel. Maybe Amy tried to pick this up?

Either way, I will verify with Amy this AM when we talk. But I think there is a big enough gap now that we can just center it all as already suggested so there is no uneven thickness (assuming it's really not just an optical illusion).

Awesome update. As long as the diamonds are set centered in the channel and the two sides that fold over to make the channel (think of an L-bracket) will be the same in both dimensions, you are golden. I'm sure they would not put out a ring with uneven channel sides.

Here's a nice video showing the channel and setting the stones.

 

[sledge]

A few more updates....

• Amy and I re-discussed the metal choices. She strongly recommends the WG mix and I am taking her advise.
• The channel set walls will be even.
• She confirmed the the head & swirls are perfect with no overlap or gaps.
• She is prepping tonight so they can start casting.

Also, got some updated pics of the wax model. The head wasn't built yet, but gotta say, this looks amazing compared to the plastic version I got last week.

 

[blueMA]

Looks great! The ring will look amazing and your gal might cry.
Just a suggestion - have a hidden camera ready for the proposal?

 

[rockysalamander]

A few more updates....

• Amy and I re-discussed the metal choices. She strongly recommends the WG mix and I am taking her advise.
• The channel set walls will be even.
• She confirmed the the head & swirls are perfect with no overlap or gaps.
• She is prepping tonight so they can start casting.

]

It looks great. Really. Once its finished...its going to be stunning. I'm on pins and needles for you...