People with clawed prongs...

[AllieLuv83]

Do you feel like your stone gets loose quickly. I took my ring to the jeweler today and he told me that my prongs were "made" wrong, that they should be chubby and rounded. When I told him that I asked for them to be clawed he said that it will always get loose because there is not a lot of meat holding my stone in. I am wondering if there is any truth to this. He told me to come back and have my prongs re-done with him.

 

[TravelingGal]

Do you feel like your stone gets loose quickly. I took my ring to the jeweler today and he told me that my prongs were "made" wrong, that they should be chubby and rounded. When I told him that I asked for them to be clawed he said that it will always get loose because there is not a lot of meat holding my stone in. I am wondering if there is any truth to this. He told me to come back and have my prongs re-done with him.

My Leon has had no problems.

 

[thbmok]

No problems with BGD claws either.

 

[ame]

No problems with BGD claws either.

With the exception of my prongs not all touching my stone, the stones never been loose and I have clawish prongs.

 

[swingirl]

My Leon has claw prongs holding my asscher. No problems. I got it in 2006.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Allie,
It's very important to remember that any design involves compromise.
A hand-forged piece is generally made from "extruded wire" which by nature is more solid than a prong made from a casting. So we can say that a properly done claw prong is stronger.
But the claw part is undeniably more likely to catch on things- like a sweater- and catching may cause the prong to bend.
But overall, loosening is by no means more common with claw prongs. Add this to the stylish delicate look- and superior manufacturing technique, and it would seem the properly done claw wins.
Having said that, properly done ball prongs can also be dependable for many years.

Maybe I'm understanding this incorrectly, but I'm a little put off by a jeweler who's not aware of this- and/or makes something up to try to get your business replacing prongs.

Hope this helps!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Nope. That has never been mentioned as a problem as long as I have been here. Otherwise we wouldn't all ask for them!

 

[Mike R]

That jeweler isn't correct, both styles of claws can come loose over time depending on how they are worn, obviously with either style the more metal there is the less likely it is to flex, flexing of the claw is what results in a loose stone.

Other things that might contribute to the durability of prongs (or lack of durability)

What type of metal is it and what alloy of that metal is it.

How many claws a stone has to secure it.

Manufacturing method, a hand made claw can be thinner than a cast one and still be less prone to flexing. Cast claws are fine but they should be on the larger side of the scale or there should be more of them.

And finally what sort of foundation do the prongs have, claws that are tied together with an under bezel will be less prone to flexing than similar sized claws without an under bezel. The claw wires should also go all the way to the bottom of the ring and be fixed there, again for a strong foundation and to stop flexing in the claws or undebezel.

Hope this helps, if you post a picture of your ring we might be able to help you better.

 

[Enerchi]

I do not have claw prongs initially when I had a custom 3 stone reset ring made this fall - the prongs were more ball like, so to speak. I had crappy issues with my prongs - 3 of the prongs were not made correctly and the bench ended up using GLUE to set my stones. The prongs are now a bit more tapered (he aimed for what they call "pigeon claws") and my stone is glue free and well secured in the new prongs. It may not always be the final tip of the claw that is the issue.

How the benchman described it to me regarding my princess diamond, the claw has a ledge/rectangle cut into it where the corner would sit, as well as the 'wedge' that holds the diamond in the claw. If these are not all precisely at the right height, then movement can occur. Well, other stuff to, but that's the gist of what I heard when I decided to go to a different shop to have my ring fixed.

 

[Frenchcut]

Like Mike R and Rockdiamond said the manufacturing (handmade vs cast) can make a difference but I don't feel like claw prongs are "wrong".

My Cartier solitaire has claw prongs and they don't show any sign of loosening their grip, I don't think such established jewelers would choose claw prongs if they were at risk.

 

[Rockdiamond]

French- it's very important to remember that prong-work on EVERY ring is at risk. No matter who made it, or how it's made.
That's the nature of wearing things on your fingers.

 

[AllieLuv83]

That jeweler isn't correct, both styles of claws can come loose over time depending on how they are worn, obviously with either style the more metal there is the less likely it is to flex, flexing of the claw is what results in a loose stone.

Other things that might contribute to the durability of prongs (or lack of durability)

What type of metal is it and what alloy of that metal is it.
It is 14k white gold

How many claws a stone has to secure it.
4 prongs

Manufacturing method, a hand made claw can be thinner than a cast one and still be less prone to flexing. Cast claws are fine but they should be on the larger side of the scale or there should be more of them.
It is cast, but IDJ had to reword the basket and the prongs

And finally what sort of foundation do the prongs have, claws that are tied together with an under bezel will be less prone to flexing than similar sized claws without an under bezel. The claw wires should also go all the way to the bottom of the ring and be fixed there, again for a strong foundation and to stop flexing in the claws or undebezel.
The prongs attach to basket

Hope this helps, if you post a picture of your ring we might be able to help you better.

Here are the images of the basket, the claws from the side, and from the top. After he "retightened" the prongs the stone was still spinning though not as much as it was before. I could turn the stone 1/4 of the way around before, now it is more like 1/8 of the way around but still turning. He didn't charge me for the work because he said he couldn't stop it from spinning all together, and short of remaking the prongs of the setting there was nothing more he could do.

 

[AllieLuv83]

here are 2 more shots.

 

[AllieLuv83]

The jeweler did say that I won't lose the diamond since the prongs wrap around the diamond well but they would always get loose.

 

[Mike R]

Those pictures are very helpful in finding out why your stone is coming loose, especially the profile picture, but I can not comment because I am trade. I'm sure the PS experts will be able to help more.
you need to look at your setting like you would any other structure, a house needs good foundations to stay safe, all the foundation posts must be securely planted in the ground to stop flexing.

I do not have any experiance at all in 14ct gold but it is an alloy of just over half gold with other metals, what these other metals are will contribute to how stong the alloy is.

 

[Mike R]

The jeweler did say that I won't lose the diamond since the prongs wrap around the diamond well but they would always get loose.

I also do not agree with this, is the jeweler a bench jeweler or a retailer?

 

[Frenchcut]

French- it's very important to remember that prong-work on EVERY ring is at risk. No matter who made it, or how it's made.
That's the nature of wearing things on your fingers.

What I meant is that claw prongs are probably not more risky than any other prongs, sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough. Of course there's always a risk with prongs and that's why I check mine every week!

 

[AllieLuv83]

Thanks for your help mike. This is actually a Henri Daussi setting that is mass produced, although it was not super spendy I still expected it to be structurally sound. Was I mistaking?

 

[Mike R]

Thanks for your help mike. This is actually a Henri Daussi setting that is mass produced, although it was not super spendy I still expected it to be structurally sound. Was I mistaking?

No problem. I really dont think I can answer your question, if I were you I would start a new thread asking for Gypsy or Diamondseeker2006 advice on your setting and how stucturally sound it is, I'm sure there are many other setting experts also but they are the first two that came to mind. Link them to this thread.

 

[Laila619]

I think what Mike R was alluding to is that the basket/head 'floats' and is not connected to the shank of the ring.

That kind of setting is not as secure as one where the basket is connected to the shank, or where there are struts holding up the head.

 

[AllieLuv83]

I completely understood the analogy my question was why would someone make an unsound setting, plus mass produce it?

 

[TravelingGal]

I completely understood the analogy my question was why would someone make an unsound setting, plus mass produce it?

Who knows...ask Vera Wang (not trying to be flippant here, but it does happen).

 

[Laila619]

I completely understood the analogy my question was why would someone make an unsound setting, plus mass produce it?

Who knows...ask Vera Wang (not trying to be flippant here, but it does happen).

Yep. Plenty of designers make things that look pretty but might not be secure/comfortable/smart etc. Not just in jewelry design but in all areas.

Vera Wang's jewelry line was so flimsy that the rings simply couldn't hold up.

My personal opinion is that that specific style of ring + having only 4 prongs + dainty claws adds up to possible troubles. However, I'm not an appraiser or anything, I'm speaking from personal experience.

 

[AllieLuv83]

Sow what would you fine folk suggest?

 

[Mike R]

I completely understood the analogy my question was why would someone make an unsound setting, plus mass produce it?

Designers are constantly pushing the limits in the quest to come up with something a little unique, sometimes like the examples others have given they push a little too far.

Your ring is basically a very traditional design that has been developed over a hundred plus years to securely hold a diamond, the traditional design has six structural supports to stop the head from flexing. The first two are where the shoulders are fixed to the under bezel the other four are where the claws bridge/support the under bezel by acting as struts supporting the undebezel.

Is removing over half the structural supports in a design a good idea?

 

[Gypsy]

I completely understood the analogy my question was why would someone make an unsound setting, plus mass produce it?

Designers are constantly pushing the limits in the quest to come up with something a little unique, sometimes like the examples others have given they push a little too far.

Your ring is basically a very traditional design that has been developed over a hundred plus years to securely hold a diamond, the traditional design has six structural supports to stop the head from flexing. The first two are where the shoulders are fixed to the under bezel the other four are where the claws bridge/support the under bezel by acting as struts supporting the undebezel.

Is removing over half the structural supports in a design a good idea?

Perfect post.

Allie, I've seen that setting. The first thing that came to mind is... beautiful but flimsy.

I helped this poster with the design of his ring seen here in completed form: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pear-halo-engagement-ring-diamond-cad-ring-proposal-photos.173913/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pear-halo-engagement-ring-diamond-cad-ring-proposal-photos.173913/[/URL] and if you look at the thread when I was giving him his design advice I told him (and Brian told him) that I do not recommend skipping the wires in the undergallery: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-expensive-is-bgd-custom-ring-pear-halo-recommendations.172578/........']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-expensive-is-bgd-custom-ring-pear-halo-recommendations.172578/..........[/URL]. So even with me and Brian giving advice the design choice was made (as you can see in the completed ring) to skip those wires. I still think it was a mistake but I know that there are many settings on the market and on PS that have this same design choice. I still don't agree with it though.

Unfortunately, like anything that combines structure and artistry there will always be those who are so focused on design that they compromise on the structure and push the envelope too far. T-gal mentioned Vera Wang and that's a great example. Her pieces were beautiful but EXTREMELY flawed to the extent that they were discontinued all together.

With yours the design "choices" are, in practice, design "flaws", as you have seen. It has NOTHING to do with your prongs at all. They are fine. I have very similar ones on my halo and have never had an issue with them. My stone is snug. But that's the because the rest of my ring supports the head securely. Plus mine is platinum.

You need a new setting, IMO. I wouldn't set anything except an inexpensive colored stone in a setting like that and I would make sure I didn't wear it too often. It's not a ring to hold an expensive stone through everyday wear.

 

[TravelingGal]

Hm...well, I just checked my clawed prong rings. Nothing loose, and I can't hear it shaking either.

One's just a Jeff Cooper Stock setting and WF did the wrongs. The other is a Leon (out of round, but that's another issue, and I'm going to put it back to round soon). The leon prongs look off, but it's to set the stone straight which has a wonky girdle. It's very secure in there and as you can see from the out of round shape, my right hand isn't exactly gentle...

Not sure if either of these rings is structurally the best, but it looks more supported than yours?

 

[Laila619]

Tgal, yours both look secure...the baskets are attached directly to the shank, and they also have the cathedral arms supporting them.

That Jeff Cooper is a tank! Looks very well-designed and substantial IMO.

 

[TravelingGal]

Tgal, yours both look secure...the baskets are attached directly to the shank, and they also have the cathedral arms supporting them.

That Jeff Cooper is a tank! Looks very well-designed and substantial IMO.

Yeah, it is a tank! As much as I love my Leon, I am so glad I went with solid for my e-ring. I never worry about this ring, ever! As it's Plat/Ruth, it's held its polish really well through the abuse too. Fortunately it looks less tankish in person!

 

[dreamer_dachsie]

Those end parts look fine to me, I would not even really call them "claw" per se, just nicely formed prongs. They seem to cut the stone. The undergallery seems to be the real issue.