I spent fifteen minutes last night writing a reply then hit the wrong button and erased it all before I gave-up and went to bed. So, I'll try again now.
Initially, I asked to see the hand shot because when I looked at the photos I kept wanting to squish the three main stones together. Also, I wanted to see the piece in context, ie, in-between fingers, because I got a sense that the outlaying stones might interfere in finger movement.
Now that we have the hand shot, the ring looks different than I'd originally thought. Overall, the piece looks more architectural and "tapestried" than I'd expected. I almost want to see MORE stackers for more of the checkerboard look! Regardless, for me the issue is still about the relationships between the main stones. The spacing, or negative space, between stones, looks to be about the same width as the actual face of each stone, the "positive" space, if you will. This makes for a very "regular" and wide pattern over a relatively narrow platform (the finger). As cigwli hinted, this relationship might work best for a wide finger.
Taking-off on D's comment about the height of the main stones, I too, usually prefer low-set stones. Still, in this case, I don't see it as a detriment. The up-and-down texture of the piece is a large part of what makes it distinctive. However, because the overall E-W effect suggests something more band-like, I can see how the high-set stones might not gel.
And, regarding OMC's comment about preferring plain bands, that was my very first thought when I saw the first photo. However, I like the fact that there is something "different" design-wise. I like all the texture.
Overall, there looks to be something very unique and interesting going on here. Still, I'm not sure that in it's current form, this is a dead-on hit for me.