Micro Pave vs. Pave & Melee????

[LuvthatSparkle]

I like the look of Pave but I also like the way the stones in Micro Pave are set. Is it possible to set Pave stones like Micro Pave stones and how does the term Melee relate to all this? For examlple: What size should Micro Pave and Pave diamonds be?

Here''s the info I''ve put together so far thanks to other pricescopers.......

1.0mm is .005ct
1.3mm is .01 ct (1pointer)
1.5mm is .015ct
1.7mm is .02 ct
2.0mm is .03 ct
2.4mm is .05 ct (5pointer)

This Micro Pave from ERD

And Reena''s famous Pave ring by Leon Mege

 

[oldminer]

Most micro-pave'' tiny melee diamonds are wax set, cast in place. Today, many larger melee pave'' is also wax set, cast in place, too.

When all diamonds were hand set, into metal and not cast in place, few people wanted to set .005ct diamonds. It is tedious work and rather costly when one considers the value of each tiny diamond. It was financially better to set fewer, but larger diamonds to fill up the space as labor savings were important. Now, with low labor rates and wax setting techniques, micro- pave'' of tiny diamonds makes financial sense. Therefore, we see it around a whole lot more often.

Really, the process of all pave'' work is very similar regardless of diamond size. Micro pave'' is a neat thing when done properly and would have been terrifically difficult to do years ago when all work was done direct in metal. Sure, skilled artisans occasionally did what might be called a micro pave'' job, but it took great care, lots of time and patience. In today''s world, we lack time, patience and a lot of this skill has also been lost. Its not so sad a thing, but times and styles do change.

 

[valeria101]

The ring at Art of Platinum seem to be done 'the old way'... or at least they look as if.

Had no idea pave is commonly cast in place... Yiks!


In the past couple of years, I got to see a couple of methods of 'micropave' making. Here are some stories:

A couple of jewelry shops around here, use allot of laser cutting and welding to make pave by the yard, so to speak - jewelry distributed under foreign labels. There is still quite a bit of manual labor involved to secure the stones in place, but the seats of for the diamonds and partially the beads that will hold stones in place are carved automatically on pre-cast gold and platinum (not a wax mold). The results are quite gorgeous and this technology also allows random markings for the stones (so different sizes can be used on the same piece etc.) The limitation? the surfaces paved have to be relatively simple (band rings, flat frames, watch faces, this sort of thing). They could not pave a complicate 3D shape (say, a drop shape pendant or something like Cartier's Panther rings).

Another.... this is not done by anyone locally, but have seen semi-finished pieces at my jeweler - brought in to be set: the settings looked like small hedgehogs - with short beady prongs cast to receive calibrated diamonds 1.5 pts or more. No diamonds were cast in. Adwar settings look like that online. A paved ring by Mark Morell done for a Pricescoper looked like that before being set... The ones I saw came from an Italian jewelry manufacturer. No comment on the result. I do not know if this method allows 'micropave' - diamonds below 1 pt to be set tight enough. My jeweler complained that the cast beads sometimes break and it is hard to repair them.

Yet another type.. looks like the previous but seems only suitable to produce single-row settings: bands, or any kind of lattice shapes. I have seen some settings of the sort imported from Israel at a jeweler's shop in Berlin. rather strange - with deep carved conic seats for the diamonds and prongs like a zigzag cut from thin metal sheet attached on the edges of the band. these were small - accepting diamonds down to half a point - maybe less, and the precisely polished contours seemed to indicate the settings were cut somehow, not cast. The jeweler had brought them in for a client to try on, and afterwards the settings were sent back to the manufacturer to be set - the jeweler explained that the melee will be set under magnification and he can't do that. Finished, the things were quite nice. However, the unusual designs (think.. spirals and dense networks of tiny diamond rows) looked a bit odd. There seems to be an explanation - the frames of metal holding the diamonds were quite dainty and flexible - so the design of the piece has to assemble the paved components on a stiff structure somehow - so that the diamonds do not pop out.

Another... there are no 'seats' - the small diamonds get pegged on a lattice with metal beads left at every crossing. I have seen this done for colored stone pave, not diamonds. The surfaces of stone-set lattice need to be reinforced by a frame - so the usual application are pins and bracelets or rather large dome-style rings.

I wonder how they make the 'diamond wire' type (e.g. Vera Wang and royal Asscher jewelry collections).

Bored yet?

These being said, I am not going to say the old was better because i simply does not sound right. Edwardian and deco jewelry didn't get to have such precisely set and (more so) precisely cut pave as the best modern jewelry gets. At least, judging from what I have seen - which does include some very fine pieces in private and public collections. The smallest diamonds in Faberge's pave are little 'rose cuts' - chips, really. It is amazing they could set the random bits to make a perfectly orderly model, but one can always wonder what the same level of refined craftmanship could do plus the high tech ways of the ideal cut half pointers ? Some shops today demonstrate the answer. I doubt one could locate a dainty century old ring with 400 diamonds set in it. Probably this sort of demonstrative technical achievement is getting a bit impractical... but it shows what can be done, at the limit. I do not know how those were set any more than I know how on Earth they cut the diamonds about a third of a point used in such a thing.

'Guess this sounds like a rather rough approximation - just about as much as peeking in a shop could show to a non-initiate. Sure there is a hoard or other modern methods to make pave. If any expert sees this and can't stop a chuckle... please drop a hint - it woudn't be lost

 

[mepearl53]

In classic pave, old style, the beads (prongs) were raised with a graver. This is a sharp instrument that when pressed down into the metal raised a bead (prong) in a random order. Some had 3 prongs (beads) others five or more depending on the design or fashion.

True micro-pave (new concept) is a prong set ( 4 prongs) when executed properly produced a seamless appearance of fire around the ring. As Dave said very time consuming and expensive. 10 dollar stone to set $40 to $50.00 bucks each in labor. Old world craftsmanship and the best.

Today some use the cast method of micro pave. This method, in most cases, will not hold up to the test of time. But, in another thread, neither do engagements, for the lifetime of wear. Cast micro pave tend to break off and this is the problem when you hear of loosing stones made by this method but 1/3 the cost or less to produce. Many made overseas but will improve with time.

Some may disagree with branded pieces but, in fact, there is a consistency in the workmanship. Some demand it, others don''t. Personal choice.

 

[LuvthatSparkle]

Okay, I think I got it. However I may need to read your replies over and over again to grasp the more technical details. So it appears that the ring from ERD looks like prong set Mirco Pave about .005 ct. While the Leon Mege ring in the old style of Pave is beed set with slightly larger stones and milgraining. The looks are very differnt (to me) so how can they be set the same.......the leon Mege ring looks like a channel setting while the ERD looks prong set....Am I making sense?

 

[mrssalvo]

LTS, it''s hard to tell from the pics but reena''s ring is bead set with a milgran border/edge (which may be why it looks channel set). The ERD ring doesn''t have the border..

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 2/15/2006 8:13:04 AM
Author: LuvthatSparkle
Okay, I think I got it. However I may need to read your replies over and over again to grasp the more technical details. So it appears that the ring from ERD looks like prong set Mirco Pave about .005 ct. While the Leon Mege ring in the old style of Pave is beed set with slightly larger stones and milgraining. The looks are very differnt (to me) so how can they be set the same.......the leon Mege ring looks like a channel setting while the ERD looks prong set....Am I making sense?

It''s hard to tell from the pics but the ERD ring looks to be a casting then the diamonds were set. And LM ring looks handmade but micro pave set. Big difference in cost and how the ring will hold up in the long run. Handmade you eliminate porosity and casting you never know about where the porosity is.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/14/2006 8:13:34 PM
Author: mepearl53

Some may disagree with branded pieces but, in fact, there is a consistency in the workmanship. Some demand it, others don't. Personal choice.

If that was always true then we wouldnt disagree on it.
Reading all the problems people have had with branded pieces even well known names here the quality isnt always there.
Im sure you could name several brands that are worth the premium and we could name a lot that arent.
You could say that its some giving them all a bad name and id agree.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 2/15/2006 1:55:06 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/14/2006 8:13:34 PM
Author: mepearl53

Some may disagree with branded pieces but, in fact, there is a consistency in the workmanship. Some demand it, others don''t. Personal choice.

If that was always true then we wouldnt disagree on it.
Reading all the problems people have had with branded pieces even well known names here the quality isnt always there.
Im sure you could name several brands that are worth the premium and we could name a lot that arent.
You could say that its some giving them all a bad name and id agree.

You and I disagree I agree that there are brands that are not worth the paper they are advertised on. Companies that spend a lot of money on marketing does not make a brand to me. Consistency does. Those, that I''ve experienced, that consistently deliver superior wear and durability coupled with excellence in customer service are worth the extra money spent. And I have read about the same ones you have.

 

[LuvthatSparkle]

Thanks all for your help. Here''s another tease from LM, I love this one. I''m asking all these questions because I like the way the Mirco Pave stones are set but I don''t like the skinny band that much. But I don''t like the milgrain border either. I just want to know what I''m talking about when I sit down with a jeweler. Perhaps I should contact LM''s office since he probably has samples of both rings and my BF and I can see them up close.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/15/2006 6:10:41 PM
Author: LuvthatSparkle


I like the way the Mirco Pave stones are set but I don't like the skinny band that much. But I don't like the milgrain border either.

Why not have more than one row of pave on the shank? That will make it wider. Using larger stones also makes the gaps between them more visible.

There are some rings like this among the designers listed at Pearlman's (Ritani with three rows and Michael B, probably others too).

 

[Odilia]

Date: 2/14/2006 3:37:31 PM
Author:LuvthatSparkle


Here''s the info I''ve put together so far thanks to other pricescopers.......

1.0mm is .005ct
1.3mm is .01 ct (1pointer)
1.5mm is .015ct
1.7mm is .02 ct
2.0mm is .03 ct
2.4mm is .05 ct (5pointer)

Just curious if anyone had more info to add to this list: like, the width of .1 ct, .15ct, .2 ct. etc...
(or knew where to find it)

 

[mrssalvo]

OFG- I think there is a chart or something somewhere. I don't have time to hunt it down now but will do some searching later and post it, if no one else beats me to it.

 

[Odilia]

Date: 6/9/2006 4:09:16 PM
Author: old-fashioned girl

Date: 2/14/2006 3:37:31 PM
Here''s the info I''ve put together so far thanks to other pricescopers.......

1.0mm is .005ct
1.3mm is .01 ct (1pointer)
1.5mm is .015ct
1.7mm is .02 ct
2.0mm is .03 ct
2.4mm is .05 ct (5pointer)

Just curious if anyone had more info to add to this list: like, the width of .1 ct, .15ct, .2 ct. etc... (or knew where to find it)

mrssalvo, any luck? Anyone?

 

[londonblue]

here''s a few charts for you that I bookmarked before

http://www.walshbrothers.co.uk/Update/dia04.htm
http://www.jewelrydays.com/product_info.php?cPath=134_136&products_id=1622

an actual pdf file to reference actual size, but it starts at 4.1mm
http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf

a thread that talks about melee sizes
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/melee-vs-mm-size-for-custom-setting.40054/

 

[mrssalvo]

sorry OFG. I''ve been so busy that I haven''t had a lot of PS time. I see Londonblue posted some good links, I hope that helped answer your questions.

 

[Odilia]

londonblue, thanks! That is very handy!!!

mrssalvo, no problem! Between what londonblue posted above and lorelei posted on my other thread, which I started since I thought this one might not be getting the attention given the title, I got what I need. Thanks for checking!