Quick! Feedback on Revised CADs Needed Now!

[diamondseeker2006]

I think they look MUCH better! There was just too much metal before. I am glad you asked them if they could alter that!

But that is not exactly what I think of as u-prong.

This is u-prong:

http://www.whiteflash.com/wedding-bands/annettes-u-prong-eternity-diamond-wedding-band-68.htm

Your earrings and mine have shared prong settings but the basket metal on the side is simply lowered. A u-prong is a series of scallops, basically.

 

[AGBF]

I think they look MUCH better! There was just too much metal before. I am glad you asked them if they could alter that!

But that is not exactly what I think of as u-prong.

This is u-prong:

http://www.whiteflash.com/wedding-bands/annettes-u-prong-eternity-diamond-wedding-band-68.htm

Your earrings and mine have shared prong settings but the basket metal on the side is simply lowered. A u-prong is a series of scallops, basically.

I know that I was surprised at its lack of U-ness, but I believe that the reason for that may have been my absolute insistence that the top of my ring not be changed at all. I said I did not want to see any more prongs from the top, and I believe to get a true U-prong look, one has to have U-prongs. The low, scalloped, sides have to come up into somewhat substantial prongs.

Deb

 

[FancyDiamond]

I love the top view, especially the scalloped shape. In addition, I am glad that you went with 6 diamonds in front. The new CAD shows that no matter how tall the viewer is, looking from above or below you, can see only diamonds (no metal).

As for the side view, I expected slightly less metal like the attached photo below. Wonder how much more the metal rim can be lowered without jeoparding safety?

 

[Smith1942]

I'm not much help as I don't know about the intricacies of settings the way others here do, but I think the earrings look lovely. I think the 6/4 configuration is a great idea.

Deb, I can't believe what you've been going through! You really deserve something nice.

Can't WAIT to see the SMTB thread on these!

How long will we have to wait?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Deb, did you send them the picture of mine that were posted on the previous page? Because FD is right that my side baskets are cut lower than the ones on the latest CADS.

 

[AGBF]

Deb, did you send them the picture of mine that were posted on the previous page? Because FD is right that my side baskets are cut lower than the ones on the latest CADS.

I believe so. I also mentioned their own shared-prong earrings, which yours was. They have access to that design!!!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Deb, did you send them the picture of mine that were posted on the previous page? Because FD is right that my side baskets are cut lower than the ones on the latest CADS.

I believe so. I also mentioned their own shared-prong earrings, which yours was. They have access to that design!!!

I wrote to Whiteflash again, today, sending them the photo of your earrings, DS, and also the photo that FD had marked. I pointed out to them that the earring in the photo that was not the CAD was their own, Whiteflash, shared prong diamond hoop earring.

While I generally do not believe in publishing private e-mails, I am removing a few words that are not technical and am going to excerpt the salient features of what Whiteflash wrote to me. Tell me if this makes sense to you.

"... we currently have the CAD model height at 1.40mm. This height will be reduced even further to about 1.20mm in the middle sections before the diamonds are set in place. I don’t believe that it’s wise to make this area any smaller because it may make the earrings weak and will not allow for future refurbishing because of the limited amount of metal.

To give a better ideal of the height, 1.20mm is about the same as the diameter of a ball point in a writing pen

I know that sometimes it can be difficult to visualize the proportion of a design especially when the image is blown up to a very large scale however I can assure you the we will maximize diamond visibility from the side profile without compromising durability."

Deb/AGBF

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gosh, 1.2mm is tiny! Go with what they are saying. Obviously the CAD's are bulkier than the finished product.

 

[AGBF]

Gosh, 1.2mm is tiny! Go with what they are saying. Obviously the CAD's are bulkier than the finished product.

Is that a universally held opinion or do-uh-people vary?

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Whiteflash e-mailed me to say that they would "make sure (my) earrings show the diamonds as much as possible without making the setting too weak". On August 21 I e-mailed them back and told them to go ahead. Now I am just awaiting the finished product!

I thank you all for your considerable help!

Deb

 

[m-2-b]

How exciting--I can't wait to see how they turn out! Hopefully WF will add it as a stock piece for the future b/c I would love to have some huggies, too!

 

[Acinom]

That's great news Deb! I am curious to see what it will look like!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

How exciting--I can't wait to see how they turn out! Hopefully WF will add it as a stock piece for the future b/c I would love to have some huggies, too!

I am definitely predicting that these earrings will result in some additional requests!