E-ring Reset CAD feedback please

[realhauswife]

I got an initial CAD for a new setting and would appreciate any feedback! It will be in platinum.

My top priorities: LOW profile/height, slim prongs/basket, sturdy band. I'm not planning on wearing a wedding band with it.

They nailed the design based on notes and examples I sent over. The only change I have on my list right now is the make the band a comfort fit and have it widened to at least 2mm width. Maybe 2.2mm?

 

[LilAlex]

Agree all around, That stone looked great on your hand (on the other thread) and not over-the-top. Agree with the lower profile. Would not go E/W -- looks awkward to my eye and no longer "e-ring-ish."

My bias -- spouse's actually, and after many years of daily solitaire wear in a demanding job -- is to not go too thin, as you say. I agree with the thicker shank. Comfort fit is less of an issue for this thin a ring but it is nice.

 

[realhauswife]

Agree all around, That stone looked great on your hand (on the other thread) and not over-the-top. Agree with the lower profile. Would not go E/W -- looks awkward to my eye and no longer "e-ring-ish."

My bias -- spouse's actually, and after many years of daily solitaire wear in a demanding job -- is to not go too thin, as you say. I agree with the thicker shank. Comfort fit is less of an issue for this thin a ring but it is nice.

Thank you for the feedback! True- the comfort fit may not be worth it/make any difference in this size.

Totally agree on the E/W comment- I think it can be a lovely, modern look but after trying it on- not for me.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think it looks great and certainly appears to be a more 'wearable' setting for your stone. It is a beautiful diamond and I am so glad you decided to give it another go. Can't wait to see the finished product!

 

[Niel]

Pretty

 

[Kim N]

It's beautiful. I would ask for the comfort fit and go for 2.2mm (it always seems to end up a bit less than the CAD measurement anyway).

 

[rainydaze]

I would go 2.2 on the width of the shank. Since you won't be wearing a wedder with it I feel you can afford that little extra oomph visually and sturdiness-wise.

I would also go 2mm on the thickness (at bottom, instead of 1.8mm). I find that having it be 2mm makes it feel more luxe and sturdy, and more comfortable all around. It will also stand up to wear just that much better, considering it's on the bottom of your hand where a ring takes a lot of contact/abuse. I would also go for comfort-fit.

I am glad you are giving it another go... I think this could be a really lovely ring and might just hit the mark for you!

 

[lovedogs]

I like it! Agree that 2.2mm width will likely be best for both durability and if you plan to wear it without a wedding band

 

[junebug17]

I think it looks great and I think you are going to like this style much better. I would go to 2.2 since you're not going to wear a band with it.

 

[AprilBaby]

Beautiful!

 

[molecule]

An odd suggestion but have you considered adding a built-in wedding band to the ring?

 

[lulu_ma]

Profile looks good! And another vote for comfort fit.

 

[realhauswife]

An odd suggestion but have you considered adding a built-in wedding band to the ring?

I hadn’t- I actually love the look (and feel) of one ring on its own so much I’ve never stacked my wedding ring in the years I’ve been married.

 

[peas-and-carats]

I hadn’t- I actually love the look (and feel) of one ring on its own so much I’ve never stacked my wedding ring in the years I’ve been married.

Would you consider 3mm width on the shank? I've found 3mm to be my sweet spot where a ring feels comfy, luxe, and sturdy without looking masculine on me, especially if I'm not stacking. I'm a size 5.25 for reference. With your 2ct stone, I wouldn't worry that it would overpower the diamond either. Thin is in right now, but I have a feeling the tides are shifting... Just food for thought!

 

[rainydaze]

Would you consider 3mm width on the shank? I've found 3mm to be my sweet spot where a ring feels comfy, luxe, and sturdy without looking masculine on me, especially if I'm not stacking. I'm a size 5.25 for reference. With your 2ct stone, I wouldn't worry that it would overpower the diamond either. Thin is in right now, but I have a feeling the tides are shifting... Just food for thought!

I really agree with @peas-and-carats ... I'm not sure why I held back, maybe bc you weren't asking about design choices/changes.

I can also see a reverser-taper looking incredible (especially for a standalone ring) where it is 3mm at the diamond (or a little more even, 3.2 maybe) tapering down to 2-2.2 at the bottom. i think that would have incredible visual impact overall, while still highlighting the diamond. (That is what I did with the ring in my avatar, a reverse-taper. It is a subtle feature that I find always catches my eye whenever I see them, and makes the diamond stand out even more - kind of like an arrow leading your eye to it. Your ring being a solitaire, to be worn alone, would make a great candidate for it, imo!)

 

[realhauswife]

Would you consider 3mm width on the shank? I've found 3mm to be my sweet spot where a ring feels comfy, luxe, and sturdy without looking masculine on me, especially if I'm not stacking. I'm a size 5.25 for reference. With your 2ct stone, I wouldn't worry that it would overpower the diamond either. Thin is in right now, but I have a feeling the tides are shifting... Just food for thought!

I really agree with @peas-and-carats ... I'm not sure why I held back, maybe bc you weren't asking about design choices/changes.

I can also see a reverser-taper looking incredible (especially for a standalone ring) where it is 3mm at the diamond (or a little more even, 3.2 maybe) tapering down to 2-2.2 at the bottom. i think that would have incredible visual impact overall, while still highlighting the diamond. (That is what I did with the ring in my avatar, a reverse-taper. It is a subtle feature that I find always catches my eye whenever I see them, and makes the diamond stand out even more - kind of like an arrow leading your eye to it. Your ring being a solitaire, to be worn alone, would make a great candidate for it, imo!)

This is all good food for thought! Gut reaction is that 2.5mm would be the thickest I'd go, but I so appreciate the thoughts and will think about it. I am just concerned about going thicker than 2.5mm since my fingers are pretty small.

 

[RMOO]

Ok, since a couple of others brought up the idea of band of more than 2.2, it reminded me of a thread that I posted in a while back, regarding wider e-ring bands, linked below, so you could get a feel for the look. For reference, the pic I posted was of a 1.04 round (6.5mm) with a 5mm band, and I have a size 5 finger (ring size 5.25 for my knuckle) And there are a number of other posts with different width bands.

I am not saying I think you should do this necessarily, it's all personal preference, but with your emerald at 8.58mm long, and not wanting to wear a wedding band with it, I think you could easily do a wider band, if you like the look.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wide-engagement-band.268931/#post-5030286

 

[peas-and-carats]

This is all good food for thought! Gut reaction is that 2.5mm would be the thickest I'd go, but I so appreciate the thoughts and will think about it. I am just concerned about going thicker than 2.5mm since my fingers are pretty small.

I understand. If I remember correctly, you really love the look of the Lucida, and that ring is designed with a substantial band and the reverse taper that @rainydaze mentioned. I think Tiffany really knew what they were doing there because it looks so luxe that way, imo. I think you should definitely consider at least 2.5mm, maybe with a reverse taper to 3mm? I have found rings in that range much more comfortable than thinner bands, but of course YMMV.

 

[realhauswife]

I understand. If I remember correctly, you really love the look of the Lucida, and that ring is designed with a substantial band and the reverse taper that @rainydaze mentioned. I think Tiffany really knew what they were doing there because it looks so luxe that way, imo. I think you should definitely consider at least 2.5mm, maybe with a reverse taper to 3mm? I have found rings in that range much more comfortable than thinner bands, but of course YMMV.

That is a great point! Yes, I love the look of the Lucida. I agree thicker bands have such a luxe, silky look! I love the look of a band that tapers to almost match the length of the diamond, but I've noticed for me personally the effect isn't the same once the stone is over a certain length.

I'm definitely considering 2.5mm though. Do you have a width to height ratio you like for bands?

 

[realhauswife]

Ok, since a couple of others brought up the idea of band of more than 2.2, it reminded me of a thread that I posted in a while back, regarding wider e-ring bands, linked below, so you could get a feel for the look. For reference, the pic I posted was of a 1.04 round (6.5mm) with a 5mm band, and I have a size 5 finger (ring size 5.25 for my knuckle) And there are a number of other posts with different width bands.

I am not saying I think you should do this necessarily, it's all personal preference, but with your emerald at 8.58mm long, and not wanting to wear a wedding band with it, I think you could easily do a wider band, if you like the look.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wide-engagement-band.268931/#post-5030286

Thank you for this!!

 

[peas-and-carats]

That is a great point! Yes, I love the look of the Lucida. I agree thicker bands have such a luxe, silky look! I love the look of a band that tapers to almost match the length of the diamond, but I've noticed for me personally the effect isn't the same once the stone is over a certain length.

I'm definitely considering 2.5mm though. Do you have a width to height ratio you like for bands?

Oh yeah, a taper all the way up to match the height of your 2ct emerald would look pretty wild lol.

So I just measured my Tiffany Harmony solitaire ring with digital calipers; I find this ring so comfortable that I hardly feel I'm wearing it. (You can look at my post history for photos to see what it looks like, bearing in mind the diamond is a 6mm round.) The band is 3mm at its widest point in the front, and it narrows to 2mm at the back. Height wise, it is around 1.5mm at the back, 1.75mm on the sides, gradually increasing to over 2mm in front as it rises to meet the basket.

If it were me, I'd probably start at 2.5mm wide, 1.8mm tall, and then see the wax CAD on the hand and go from there.

 

[peas-and-carats]

@realhauswife
Here are two photos I pulled off of Google Images of 2ct emerald solitaires. I think the thicker band looks so much more cohesive, expensive (more metal = more $), and I'm trying to find the words... made with intention. Yes that's it. But that's just MY opinion; some people love the delicate look, and their opinions are just as valid.

 

[realhauswife]

@realhauswife
Here are two photos I pulled off of Google Images of 2ct emerald solitaires. I think the thicker band looks so much more cohesive, expensive (more metal = more $), and I'm trying to find the words... made with intention. Yes that's it. But that's just MY opinion; some people love the delicate look, and their opinions are just as valid.

I agree that there is more balance in the first example. I had a smaller stone originally and always preferred a delicate band and never really considered anything else. Now that I've actually worn a thinner band (not to mention the height issue) with a 2ct I realize something is off for me. I think I may start at 2.5mm x 1.8mm and see what the mold looks like.

Thank you for sharing those photos!

 

[emmy12]

Oh yeah, a taper all the way up to match the height of your 2ct emerald would look pretty wild lol.

So I just measured my Tiffany Harmony solitaire ring with digital calipers; I find this ring so comfortable that I hardly feel I'm wearing it. (You can look at my post history for photos to see what it looks like, bearing in mind the diamond is a 6mm round.) The band is 3mm at its widest point in the front, and it narrows to 2mm at the back. Height wise, it is around 1.5mm at the back, 1.75mm on the sides, gradually increasing to over 2mm in front as it rises to meet the basket.

If it were me, I'd probably start at 2.5mm wide, 1.8mm tall, and then see the wax CAD on the hand and go from there.

I think Tiffany scales up the width of the Harmony based on the size of the center stone so that it maintains the same overall proportions.

I also would vote for a wider band. A huge stone on a skinny band is not to my taste either!

 

[peas-and-carats]

I think Tiffany scales up the width of the Harmony based on the size of the center stone so that it maintains the same overall proportions.

I also would vote for a wider band. A huge stone on a skinny band is not to my taste either!

I'm fairly certain the Harmony maintains a 3mm width at the thickest point of the taper. Tiffany's Etoile and Lucida lines do scale with the center stone size. It's hard to find examples of the Harmony in larger ctw, but it's most evident when looking at the smaller stones. (Sorry for the derail.)

 

[emmy12]

I'm fairly certain the Harmony maintains a 3mm width at the thickest point of the taper.

Hehehe the pictures you posted i think do show that the widest shank width is a bit smaller on the tiny diamond than the larger one. Use the Harmony wedding band as the comparison and you can tell the wedding band has about the same width as the shank in the smaller stone, but the shank on the larger one is a bit wider?

ETA: I know this because the Harmony is one of my favorite settings I've tried on and have been scrutinizing it to find all the design elements I love about it.

Edit 2: went and pulled the comparison photos from tiffany website (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0ct) and now I don't know if the band does change lol.


ps. Sorry for the Threadjack! This style of pinched band would be worth considering in the cathedral setting design.

 

[emmy12]

Pinched band emerald cut with a thicker shank, from James Allen (1.6 ct) https://www.jamesallen.com/diamond-...97mxHOloYi4072C8pA_PW7M0JjycF89QaAtreEALw_wcB

 

[msop04]

For a stand alone ring, I would consider making the shank much wider. As mentioned above, a reverse taper would look really nice.

 

[emmy12]

Oh yeah, a taper all the way up to match the height of your 2ct emerald would look pretty wild lol.

So I just measured my Tiffany Harmony solitaire ring with digital calipers; I find this ring so comfortable that I hardly feel I'm wearing it. (You can look at my post history for photos to see what it looks like, bearing in mind the diamond is a 6mm round.) The band is 3mm at its widest point in the front, and it narrows to 2mm at the back. Height wise, it is around 1.5mm at the back, 1.75mm on the sides, gradually increasing to over 2mm in front as it rises to meet the basket.

If it were me, I'd probably start at 2.5mm wide, 1.8mm tall, and then see the wax CAD on the hand and go from there.

I'm saving this information and sending it immediately to the BF

 

[peas-and-carats]

I'm saving this information and sending it immediately to the BF

Hehehe the pictures you posted i think do show that the widest shank width is a bit smaller on the tiny diamond than the larger one. Use the Harmony wedding band as the comparison and you can tell the wedding band has about the same width as the shank in the smaller stone, but the shank on the larger one is a bit wider?

ETA: I know this because the Harmony is one of my favorite settings I've tried on and have been scrutinizing it to find all the design elements I love about it.

Edit 2: went and pulled the comparison photos from tiffany website (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0ct) and now I don't know if the band does change lol.


ps. Sorry for the Threadjack! This style of pinched band would be worth considering in the cathedral setting design.

Haha, and I'm pretty certain Tiffany keeps these measurements consistent on the Harmony because I'm also in love with the setting and have seen multiple carat weights in person, and they all had the same band dimensions.

It's hard when looking at photos online because people have different ring sizes, which make the bands look different on different fingers, in addition to the carat weights. Lastly, the angle at which the taper needs to rise to meet the basket will vary with carat weight (bigger diamond = taller basket), so that adds another variable to the look.



Here's a photo of two Harmony rings, same ring size, different ctw. The one of the right is more matte looking because it was used, but I promise they were the same width.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming....