Hi,
so…your bottom rail is 0.17mm in height/ thickness…?…an i reading that right?…so this is basically the thickness of the shank at the top…?…where there is continuity/contact…?
as an aside, here is a link to Stuller CAD CAM production standards. It is a good reference…especially regarding minimums, etc…for points not mentioned, you can extrapokate from information given…ie: if this, then that…
julie
Steve,
Sorry to “beat a dead horse”, but a Ring Shank that is 1.73mm Thick and then 1.33mm Thick at where the Shank meets the Stones (especially Baguettes) is WAY TOO THIN to support the Structural Integrity of the Design of this Ring! Think of it this way, if your Shank is this Thin, then the Framework that Supports those Baguettes is going to have to be Even Thinner/Lightweight and that is asking a lot when you add the Off-Set Design of those Stones. You have one Stone in particular that joins the next Stone directly in the middle of that Stone’s Framework and that equals a Very Weak Spot in an already Too Thin Mounting. Like I said before, your Design looks very nice, but unless you Thicken the Metal that Supports the Structure of it, it is going to be a noting but problems for the Stone Setter, the future owner and the Jeweller that has to deal with it when if breaks apart.
Jonathan
No the metal is 0.95 mm thick up top. The 0.17 mm is the clearance of the stone to the finger.
Your stones are still 180 degrees of the ring circumference, which still places them against adjacent fingers and therefore is a comfort issue. If it’s a criterion to keep the stones off the fingers, I’d suspect 90 to 100 degrees is closer to what would work, but you’d have to do some figuring or modeling to be sure.
-royjohn
Hi Steve,
ok, just to be clear…what are the measurements/ thickness ot each of the 4 colors
i have marked
red (bottom rail)
blue (top rail)
orange (gallery gap)
purple (total height at bar side)
and which parts touch all the way around?
julie
I made another revision. I thickended the shank, thickened and extended the basket, reduced the number of stones to have a smaller angle of stones and make it more comfortable. The gap is now ~0.2 mm between the stones.Thank you so much for the feedback! It seems a lot more robust now.
Steve,
Now that’s a much better Design, definitely a more comfortable wearing Ring and it has a good solid structure, looking at the underside, you can tell that it is well made and will hold up to daily wear, Well Done!!! Stone Setters and Jewellery Repairmen would be happy to work on that Mounting! 
Jonathan
Personally I don’t see the esthetic advantage or need to have some of the stones set higher than others, but that’s an opinion. The problem I see is the inside of the ring, where three baskets protrude into the ring further than the circumference of the shank. I think these are going to be uncomfortable against the wearer’s finger. If you want those stones lower, I think you need to do something…perhaps parallel rails running the circumference of the ring…to make the surface smooth. If there is one universal design criteria for a ring, it is that the inside of the ring be smooth for comfort. -royjohn
Yeah, I think that works! Nice and smooth on the inside.
Are the stones supposed to drop in and the metal is pulled over the ends, or are the stones not supposed to completely fit at first, and a notch is cut in to let them sit?
Hi Steve,
I applaud your enthusiasm for CAD, and always love hearing from you. Orchid is a great source for finding solutions to your jewelry questions.
Have you looked into www.jewelrytrainingsolutions.com yet? I suggest the monthly all access subscription, and diving straight into the stone setting curriculum, as an “armchair jeweler”
it will give you a base of knowledge you currently do not have, and help you to better achieve you CAD goals. Stone setting, and production standards affect so many aspects of the overall design, considerations, and the CAD modeling workflow
i suggest this because your posts are sort of like trying to remove a huge pile of gravel, by hand, one stone at a time…versus using a bulldozer…
i believe the time spent in learning to operate the bulldozer will save you time in the long run, and the cost of the bulldozer will be offset by the time saved that you will have to spend on CAD.
i realize everyone learns in their own way, and teachers vary in their approach…
i can say, compared to all of my various training experiences, that www.jewelrytrainingsolutions.com is an excellent source for general stone setting training videos.
if you are serious about your pursuits as a CAD jewelry designer, then i believe this would is a necessary part of your overall CAD training.
i hope you can give them a look.
julie
Yes I have found the site and am using it.
Hi steve,
yay! i hope you love it and learn what you need!
julie
Generally, a seat is cut into the end wall to match the profile of pavilion each stone, and then the wall is deformed to close over the crown of the stone.
This ensures that (or at least enables) each stone has a setting that fits it exactly, so each stone is set level, and level with every other stone, rather that “capture setting” stones that are resting on their Pavillion facets, with a fold of metal holding them down. Capture Setting can lead to either chipping, or stones set at noticably differnt levels, or both.
Capture setting works for mass production, when quality is not the goal, but lacks the finesse of craftsmanship.
All of this is opinion, of course, and others may have other ideas, but that is what I was taught.
Sounds like the baguettes should not quite fit, and a notch is cut to allow them in, with resting on the girdle while in capture setting the baguettes would slip into the seat, sit on the pavilion, without cutting a notch?
My gemsetter said they could be a little tighter on the ends. maybe 0.1 to 0.05 mm shorter.
Yes.
