>    Well, being a jeweller, I would say that ring 2 would be more
> manly.

the 2nd one apears to be more manly to me as well.
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3ea53f18@news.povray.org...
>
> "Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
> news:3ea45949@news.povray.org...
>
> > PPS. The reason I actually set about drawing this is that I'd like
> to BUY
> > myself such a ring - or rather, have someone buy one for me - and I
> wanted
> > to illustrate the kind of ring I wanted. What do people think? Does
> it make
> > me look too girly??
>
>    Well, being a jeweller, I would say that ring 2 would be more
> manly.
>
> >
> > PPPS. I wonder how many gemstones can just magically attach
> themselves to a
> > ring without any kind of "setting"...
>
>   Firstly, you wouldn't get a stone cut like that unless you can get
> something like tourmaline in its original form (what's known as
> 'rough'), and then have it custom cut to your specs. Secondly, you
> could have it set so that it appears as though it doesn't have a
> setting by having a groove cut out of the four sides of the stone and
> then the jeweller would push the gold into that groove to hold it.
>
>    Nice idea.
>
>    ~Steve~
>

Post a reply to this message