Going to wear this ring for the rest of my life, so I would appreciate any feedback on my Tianyu CAD! :) Three stone round OEC setting with matching band.
Posted Apr 29, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC
1030
Ribbed baguette for her pleasure
7
Your band at 1.5 is very thin. I don't think it will last the rest of your life. The 1.6 measurement should be at least 1.8. I normally don't go any thinner then 2 mm
7
Considering the low cost, I really wanted something delicate and am OK with the idea of possibly needing to replace in the future, or have loose stones replaced.
I wear a 1.5mm pave band of my grandmother's every day that has held up over 50 years, so I am hopeful that this one holds up as well. If it doesn't I'll roll with the punches.
5
The metal holding the baguettes in place is extremely thin and definitely not going to hold up over time, not to mention it doesn’t give enough support to the center stone which already doesn’t have much support it looks like. The design itself is probably not good for a rest of your life ring. One wrong wack on something and I could see the top warping. Also minimum thickness should be 1.8mm (I prefer 2mm) and minimum width should be 2mm.
6
The metal holding the engagement ring baguettes in place, or the wedding band? Or both?
2
The engagement ring baguettes
1
OK thank you for looking. Is there a suggested thickness for that area that you'd recommend, or should I just ask them to make it thicker?
2
Thickness of shank should ideally be 1.7-1.8mm after polishing, width of shank should be 2mm. This is for both rings. Personally, I would remove 2-4 baguettes so that there is more space at the bottom for a jeweler to easily resize the ring if you need that in the future. I'm curious how it will turn out, especially the invisible gallery on the e-ring.
4
Good point about making room at the bottom for resizing, I have been losing a lot of weight and hope in the future my ring size will go down!
I will ask them to adjust some of the thickness and width since it seems like that's been pretty consistent feedback in here.
1
Beautiful design! I would change your band to at least 1.8
Cant wait to see the final result!
3
Very cool design! I am interested in getting a baguette band too, but was deterred after hearing that they aren’t very sparkly. I checked with Starsgem and Helzberg to get a quote for a baguette band with lab grown diamonds and they both quoted me around $1,000, which is cost prohibitive for me. I’d be really interested to see it if you order! As far as I know, angelwaye is the only one who has ordered baguettes. I’d love to hear another opinion.
3
Not sure where you are located, but I've seen Saks Off Fifth sell baguette bands that are significantly less than that. They're colored H-I and SI clarity (and natural), but I thought they looked decent as they're small and thin stones. I've seen them in person. Example here: https://www.saksoff5th.com/kc-designs-14k-white-gold-diamond-ring/product/0400099239864?site_refer=CSE_GGLPLA:Womens_Jewelry:KC+Designs&gclid=CjwKCAjwwZrmBRA7EiwA4iMzBFy0s8yHbP9LInYBD0ggASOepYfDMXY3aTGtXKAYZ47_G39GsiHaQBoCUKsQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
1
I think the width of your band is not an issue. As long as the ring is well casted and quality metal is used the 1.5mm band will last that’s not a problem. The issue you may find is the size of your baguettes. Being a step cut stone that small, not too much light will move through to give you the shine you may like. I would suggest increasing your band with just a Little to increase the baguette size a little. Alternatively what may be nice is a small row of pave stones on each side of the baguettes running down the band. They will tie into your round centre stone and give the band a little extra sparkle if worn on its own ! Have fun designing!
3
Not a pro, but I’d be concerned about the point of the stone hitting my finger. Seems uncomfortable
2
The bottom point of the stone is designed to fall where it normally would in a normal setting so it will be above my finger. I tried on a similar ring at Lauren B and it doesn't hit my finger.
2
Beyond the comfort (and fit) issue, there’s also an aesthetic issue here. Fingers are squishy (unless you’re a robot with metal cylindrical fingers). Because of the way that the baguette cathedrals are angled up off the finger, This design is likely not to hold the stone above your finger without the stone touching your skin. In order for that to happen, the band needs to really hug the curve of your finger before arching up to hold the center stone. This has a wide, open arc which leaves plenty of room for your finger to touch the bottom of the stone. From the top, this could cause your stone to look a little dark, because your skin will be pressed up against the pavilion of the stone. That effect will worsen in the presence of any moisture.
If you added a bridge that went under the center stone, it would hold the stone elevated above your finger at all times (without having to change the height of the stone). This will be more comfortable and also sparklier!! The bridge can be same thickness as the band, so it’s invisible from the top and still allows your wedding band to stack flush.
That’s just my two cents and recommendation, but I spend all my time building custom engagement rings so it’s not my first rodeo! I totally see the look and effect that you’re going for, but I think adding a bridge is going to give you more bang for your buck and you would be happier with the ring over time.
3
I am thinking that wearing my band underneath will provide support, since it will sit underneath the basket (I don't know what to call it, sorry) of the main stone. This would definitely have it sit off my finger and not touch the skin on my finger. Or do you still think it won't have enough support?
1
Basket is exactly the right term!! Your band will help to keep it up off your finger when they are perfectly stacked (but they’ll shift on your finger because fingers are squishy and the two rings are going to fit very differently because of their shapes). The basket on your engagement ring likely sticks up higher than your band, and because of the shape it won’t fit firmly on your finger. This is going make for a slightly sloppy fit that will not create a firm, supportive, upright combo deal when wearing both rings.
Also, based on the CAD images, the pavilion of your center stone sticks out below the basket to a considerable degree (something that the Lauren b ring you used as inspiration does not have, mainly because they use a smaller oval center stone with a shallow cut). This means that your wedding band will most likely make contact with your center stone, which is not ideal. Diamonds are hard, but not unbreakable. If your band is constantly striking and rolling against your center stone, you risk damage to all of the diamonds in your set, plus your center stone will likely wear away the metal on your wedding band, risking the security of the settings.
Adding the bridge will create a firmer fit on your finger, which will help to hold it upright and in position. It will also create a firm and supportive place for your wedding band to nestle up against it perfectly without risking any structural integrity. The slight rotation and shifts that happen all day long when you put hard metal bands on squishy human fingers would also be a non issue - both bands will always look upright and stunning, regardless of position.
From a purely functional/engineering/design perspective: The basic function of your engagement ring should not be dependent on the presence of your wedding band. It should fit well, sit upright, and always position your diamond or center stone to look it’s very best! Right now the lack of bridge actually works against all of these points, and doesn’t provide any aesthetic benefits (for all intents and purposes, the missing bridge is a detail that’s basically invisible when wearing the ring - except for the negative impact it will have on the overall look and fit).
1
Would you be willing to substitute the baguettes with emerald cut stones? I’ve seen a few beautiful emerald cut moissys that seem to have plenty of sparkle, and the vintage look is similar.
2
I would definitely be willing to do that! I will look into it. I didn't know baguette moissanites had a sparkle issue, so I'm glad I hear about this ahead of time.
2
I considered a wedding band like this and ordered a 1.5mm wide cubic zirconia band to try out and was really disappointed. The look, the size, the lack of sparkle - just everything was lackluster. Here is the one I tried if you want to do a similar exercise.
I think the design is really very pretty, and I tend to love thin delicate bands, but I would caution you that the baguette ring might not have the look you’re hoping for. An east-west elongated emerald cut band might give you more facets with similar dimensions.
2
https://imgur.com/a/cBcjLlP Here is another view of the CAD, the rings are supposed to be flush (with the band sliding below the band stone). It’s extremely important to me that the band sit flush.
I asked for the tapered baguettes to be very slightly tapered so they are intentionally 1.5x2 instead of 1.5x2.5.
This ring was inspired by Lauren B’s SOR-21729 design. https://www.laurenbjewelry.com/1-20-ct-oval-diamond-rose-gold-engagement-ring.html
Any feedback is welcome!
1
I would keep looking at Loupe Troupe or Diamond Bistro. I see a lot of diamonds ones come up but they are probably not as cheap as moissanite prices. There is also a design that alternates baguettes, than 2 rounds and so on With moissanites. I think that would help with the sparkle a bit.
I haven’t checked with SG to see if they do lab diamond baguettes yet but they do have lab diamond rounds. Also keep an eye on eBay. There is always something that comes up if you look often enough.
1
The main stone will scratch your finger. You will lose a lot of baguettes. Neither ring is "built for a lifetime"
1
I did a similar ring with the matching baguette band. It was a nice set but be prepared that the baguettes have zero sparkle. Of all the things I have ordered, it was the most disappointing. Especially the smaller the baguettes are, they less sparkle you will have. I found they look like plastic. You could always change the band to small OEC’s and you would get more sparkle out of that but I guess it depends on the look you are going for. As other’s have mentioned, the Lauren B style looks pretty and I guess is probably ok for a cheap moissanite. I would never do this style if I had an expensive diamond because there is no structural support for that center stone. A ring from your grandmother will be alloyed with stronger metals than the Chinese use. I am not saying that the quality is not there but this is a very light ring and you will see dents in the metal in a very short amount of time (like weeks) if you keep it this light.
Do you have any pictures of your baguette band?
Not the best finger pics because I sold it. The SG pictures of the band really show the lack of sparkle though and they did really look like plastic in person. I really wanted a set to match too but I feel like having rounds are a much better choice for moissanite sparkle. There just aren’t enough steps in these baguettes to give them depth. I am redoing this particular ring with diamond baguette sides stones because I always loved it but when I do wear it, I like it better with a 5 stone ring. It does not allow for a flush fit though.
Baguette Band
Thank you for sharing. Such a bummer! I really want a baguette band but don’t want to fork out the cash for diamonds.