Flush setting- secure?

[effie]

I''m in love with pave, but i just found this

http://www.greenlakejewelry.com/gallery/newimgs/final/flush.jpg

i had been thinking of a 3 mm half round band with pave, but now i''m wondering if it''s possible to do the same with teeny flush set diamonds? i would want the diamonds to be more crowded together than the image above(and of slightly varying sizes maybe)...that is, i''d like it to have that encrusted look of pave-just without the spikey beads that come along with it. Is this even possible? is flush setting more or less safe than bead setting (and more or less work for the jeweler, meaning more or less cost to me)

has anyone had this done? thanks in advance for any insights!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/15/2005 12:16:04 AM
Author:effie

i'd like it to have that encrusted look of pave-just without the spikey beads that come along with it. Is this even possible?

Perhaps...especially if it a wider band than 3mm. Taking into account that 1 point diamonds are about 1.3mm or so and smaller are rarely used, 3mm of a ring does not leave allot of room for spreading the little diamonds around...

The 'spyky' pave is a version that allows the settings to be cast in advance and the small stones to be set in tiny pre-made prongs rather than the traditional seats carved out of metal. The result looks different - call it spikey if you wish.

'Platinumsmith' has a couple of rings done with very tight flust set diamonds - only those were not done with different sizes of stones, but the usual eternity style.

These below are flush-set wedding bands by Henrich & Denzel:

Actually, I do not know of too many examples of any (modern) jewel using diamonds of different sizes to cover a surface. This bit below from Suwagems is one exception to that rule. The piece has some sort of millgrain work covering the unavoidable spaces between the diamonds - you could have it smooth, I would think.

Just an idea. I really do like the ring you picked up

 

[denverappraiser]

Yes, it's possible. Properly done, flush setting is every bit as secure as pave. Poorly done, nothing is secure. Incidentally, properly done pave does not generally get described as spikey. You may just be protesting the craftsmanship. I really like the contemporary and taylored look that flush setting produces.

The cost should be about the same. Pave is a little easier to do but not by enough to matter.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[PhillipSchmidt]

Ana''s photos are perfect. They are large for the band but the band is very thick. (Otherwise they would protrude into your finger)

Flush set is easier to some and harder to others depending on experience. Flush setting is easier for the inexperienced but the spiky stuff takes less time for those with the know how.

I like the idea you are putting forward. Ana''s example says it all.

One last thing, deep flush setting is often set with a hidden spike. Machined jewellery (as above) will be shaped like a rubbed over (another term for the same thing thing which depicts the setting method), but in this case the setting has the same surround, but a tiny nick holds the stone in place. This makes for better jewellery in most cases but it is not the same. If done by hand it is not necessary because part of making that shape is part the technique of setting the diamond.

Not sure if this will make sense...

Phillip

 

[FireGoddess]

The ring in question, below. I thought this was called Gypsy setting, and was done quite a lot. Is this true?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I have heard that too FG. Also I have heard them called "burnished diamonds"

 

[PhillipSchmidt]

I haven't heard of that term, but it works.

I have always known that arrangement as scatter set

 

[effie]

thanks firegoddess for posting the pic- i wasnt sure if i could without permission.

anyway, i''m obviously no jeweler, and maybe this idea would make one ugly ring for all i know but- if vatche(among others) can bead set diamonds on a thin band, then could you not "flush" or "gypsy" set them on the same band? i''m imagining that the diamonds in the 1st image i''ll post below are a bit more shoulder to shoulder than the diamonds would be in a flush set ring. it seems that with the flush setting, there would be a thin strip of metalin between. i guess i''d be willing to go slightly wider or even go with more of a domed shape to accomodate the depth of the diamonds, though i really love the shape of the ring in the 1st image.

i dunno...are there any examples of this anywhere? maybe there aren''t because it''s an impossible/ugly/silly idea? i''m awful with photoshop or i''d try to do some crude composite to see what it would look like.

also, maybe "spikey" was a poor choice of words...how about "lumpy"

 

[effie]

As in


Lumpy (from james allen, but like the vatche setting i had been eyeing)

Not so lumpy

the ring in the second image...the diamonds are too big i think. i''d like ''em smaller. closer to the size of the 1st ring. seems to me like it would be a pain in the arse, no?

 

[PhillipSchmidt]

Are we talking about pave'' setting flush settings in three rows? It is not something I have seen done. In any case bead set is easier to do (and therefore more common), but I would not let that put you off.

Just to play with the idea. Yes it could be done and it would definitely look good. In the Vatche example the ring has, say, 1pt diamonds so thickness of the band is not an issue. They can be set side by side, but if there is should be enough metal between them to have each stone in its own setting, then of course there must be a gap. Otherwise you are talking about a mixed style of setting, crossed between channel/bead/flush. They needn’t be set as deep as the machine made version so a .5mm gap is plenty if flush is really the go.

The affect is hard to perfect because it rests on the polishing to get it to look right and the polisher has a lost cause if the diamonds are not all set exactly right - straight, even and where the tables are nice and even all across the whole band. The melee has to be matched perfectly.

That was fun.

Now… in worrying about depth (not weight) you might have an entirely different idea in mind. If so, doming higher doesn''t really help as flush settings need an even camber. Otherwise the surrounding curves that hold the hold the stones will be uneven. They look best set when the band is flat and the surround is more uniformed. This is not as important as you might think when 1pt diamonds are the issue, but very important for larger stones.

If weight is an issue then remember that the band is full of holes.

 

[effie]

thanks for all your help!

actually, i was in boston this weekend and popped into Shreve Crump and Low where i tried on a pave ring and really fell in love...so i think i''ll stick with that...now if only i can find a less expensive version of what i tried on....

-e