Jewellery CAD previews and production files: what are you approving?

One design, several different decisions

A jewellery project may be discussed through a sketch, a rendered image and a set of CAD files. They can refer to the same design while serving different purposes. The image helps you discuss appearance. The model records geometry. A particular export is prepared for an agreed recipient or workflow. Approving one should not leave the other decisions implied. Before commissioning design work, ask what you will review, what will be delivered and who must assess it before any manufacturing step is authorized.

Use a preview to ask visual questions

A preview gives the design conversation a common reference. Look at the outline, the relationship between elements and the views included in the proposal. A top view of a ring and a side view answer different questions, so ask for the views agreed in your brief rather than assuming one image explains the whole piece. Colour, reflections and apparent scale belong to the presentation. The actual material, dimensions, stones and finish still need to be described in the written specification.

• Which feature is being shown or changed?
• Which view would clarify the remaining question?
• Which dimensions are confirmed rather than estimated visually?

Name the editable source explicitly

An editable model is a different deliverable from a presentation image. If source files are needed, agree the format, application version, permitted use and revision scope before work starts. For a Rhino assignment, that may include a .3dm source where the commission and rights agreement provide for it. Do not assume that every design fee includes editable source or unrestricted future use. If another designer will continue the work, identify that intended handover when defining the assignment, rather than discovering the requirement after delivery.

An export needs a recipient

Before accepting an export, ask the receiving maker to confirm this handover record:

• Reference: the approved design revision and one named contact for acceptance.
• Units and dimensions: the intended model units and at least one reference dimension to check after import.
• File scope: which objects and separate components are included.
• Checks: the maker’s required geometry and mesh review, plus who resolves a rejected file.

McNeel documents STL as polygon-mesh surface geometry rather than a file carrying colour and texture, and notes that some rapid-prototyping systems require closed meshes. Confirm the receiving workflow instead of using a universal export tolerance. Rhino documentation: STL import and export.

An STL export may form part of an agreed handover, but the file extension does not describe every acceptance requirement. Ask the receiving maker what it needs, including the relevant units, export settings and review criteria. Record that information against the selected design version. A generic export should not be treated as universally suitable for every printer, casting route or manufacturing process. The receiving maker must assess and accept the files for its own workflow; changes requested at that stage need an agreed responsibility and scope.

Keep the approval questions separate

A design can be visually approved while technical questions remain open. Conversely, a technically usable file may still represent a version the customer has not selected. Record the decisions separately so neither side assumes that a positive comment on an image authorizes production. Geometry and dimensional checks should be the ones agreed for the assignment. Manufacturing suitability, stone fit, clearances and production allowances require the receiving maker’s assessment. A convincing render does not independently establish those outcomes or a finished metal weight.

• Visual approval: the appearance and selected version.
• Design review: the agreed dimensions and geometry checks.
• Manufacturing acceptance: the named maker’s process requirements.
• Production authorization: the separate decision to proceed.

Make changes traceable

Use a short approval note, for example: Revision B: side profile selected; final size and receiving-maker acceptance still open; no production authorization given. This is an illustrative record, not an approval of a real project. Match the note to the actual file name and preview version. When a revised export is supplied, ask whether the earlier one is superseded and make that status visible to everyone receiving the handover. A filename such as final-new alone does not explain what changed or who has accepted it.

When a detail changes, identify the new version and explain whether the change concerns appearance, dimensions or the requested handover. Keep the accepted reference and review notes together. Sending an image from one revision with an export from another can create uncertainty even when both files open correctly. Ask for file names and accompanying notes that make the agreed version understandable. Additional views, adaptations or revisions should follow the terms of the quotation rather than being assumed to belong to an earlier approval.

Prepare a useful design-only enquiry

Begin with the piece you want to develop, the information already available and the decision the files must support. State whether this is a private design or a business assignment and whether a receiving manufacturer has been selected. Share a non-confidential summary first; detailed customer or proprietary files need an agreed transfer route and recipients. Reinhard’s Rhino jewellery CAD design and design-only service pages describe how to discuss previews, revisions and delivery separately from manufacture. Use those distinctions to request a quotation suited to the work you actually need.