|
|
|
|
| ||
Diamond Jewelry Forums
 Picture Gallery
 Video Gallery
 Journal
|
|||
|
|  Search
|  Posted Today
|  Most Active
|  Help
|
||
 »
Home
»  » Diamond Prices and Grading »
 » RockyTalky
»  » thickness of tension settings
|
|
 |
thickness of tension settings |
 |
| P: 4/22/2004 6:34:11 PM | |
chialea Ideal Rock Total Posts: 520 Last Post: 9/3/2004 Member Since: 4/20/2004 |
Some of you have lovely tension settings, and I'm sure more of you have tried em on. I've looked all over the web, and I haven't seen any measurements of how thick the metal is and so on. I'm afraid my hands will be overwhelmed and it will poke adjacent fingers and keep me from putting my hands in my pockets! Does anyone have measurements (especially for those pass-by kinds like http://www.mickyroof.com/tr025b.jpg), or have impressions? My fingers are both extremely short and thinner than size 5... I get the impression that these settings just won't be practical or pretty on me, but my SO likes them quite a lot, so we're checking em out. |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 6:34:11 PM | |
|
There are 9 replies to this message. There are 9 replies on this page. |
|
| P: 4/22/2004 7:23:09 PM | |
winyan Ideal Rock Total Posts: 1,144 Last Post: 11/1/2006 Member Since: 5/9/2003 |
chialea I don't know which MR you are referencing, but I have a G & A by-pass with a 7.5 mm stone. It is indeed quite thick...Dang, I just had my mm gauge in front of me, now it's disappeared again. Well, guessing the ring is about 10 - 12 mm thick. So that's quite bulky. I wear mine on the middle finger of my right hand. Hope that helps. win "... (Corporations) have all the benefits of voters, without the guidance of a conscience. ... Corporations they will bring this country down." |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 7:23:09 PM | |
| P: 4/22/2004 7:39:00 PM | |
boonerings Cut Rock Total Posts: 157 Last Post: 8/30/2009 Member Since: 10/31/2003 |
It does depend on a few factors such as the ring design, stone size, and material used. They usually go from around 2mm between the fingers to around 3mm. Widths of the rings are anywhere from around 4mm to 10mm or beyond. In general, a wider ring can have a thinner cross section. The amount of metal used in the ring cross section dictates the strength.
Bruce Boone |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 7:39:00 PM | |
| P: 4/22/2004 7:49:31 PM | |
|
boonerings Cut Rock Total Posts: 157 Last Post: 8/30/2009 Member Since: 10/31/2003 |
Chialea, if I had to guess by looking at the picture you referred to, the bottom looks to be 2.75mm thick and 4.5mm wide, the middle parts between the fingers look to be 3.5mm thick and 3.75mm wide, and the top looks to be around 4.25mm tall with 2.5mm legs, for an overall width of around 8.75mm.
Bruce Boone |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 7:49:31 PM | |
| P: 4/22/2004 8:58:56 PM | |
|
chialea Ideal Rock Total Posts: 520 Last Post: 9/3/2004 Member Since: 4/20/2004 |
Ah, thanks muchly for the help. I guess those aren't going to be particularly practical on me, I think that'll hit my knuckle! I guess it's an advantage, in a way, though: it's good for rock climbing, retrieving small objects from out of the way places, and wildly exaggerating the size of the diamond!
|
| Posted: 4/22/2004 8:58:56 PM | |
| P: 4/22/2004 10:02:12 PM | |
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
Yay! quite a few posting in the same time  Not much more left to say. It depends allot on the modes... and it helps to relate the thickness of the band with the depth of the center stone (I immagine these woudl ve e-rings). Some bands are made of the same thickness all around if meant for small (say up to 0.3cts) diamonds, like the one Mara just posted. Other rings tapper up so as to remain of normal thickness between the fingers and hold to stone above the finger... Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 10:02:12 PM | |
| P: 4/22/2004 10:06:06 PM | |
Mara Ideal Rock Total Posts: 27,936 Last Post: 11/25/2009 Member Since: 10/30/2002 |
Here is one that was posted in the show me the ring forum...it's a G&A ring with a 1.25 stone I think. It shows the tapered sides that Val was talking about, it gets bigger up top to accommodate the depth of the stone, but on the sides you can have it thinner so it does not disturb your fingers. This looks a bit thick even..I think I have seen thinner rings. My e-ring is not tension but it's about 2.2mm depth thickness and it does not disturb my hands at all from closing. This picture of this ring, maybe more like 3mm? So if you could request it to be closer to 2mm, you'd most likely be fine. Try some settings on in stores, it may help.
I love these settings, the diamond is truly showcased.  ________________________________ |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 10:06:06 PM | |
| P: 4/22/2004 10:10:56 PM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
Yes! I forgot about these! The setting in Mara's pic is set relatively high - they did add a bit of depth under the stone, so the band became thicker all around. But this is the general idea though. There are many versions of tension settings that do not have the mass of metal (although Ti is very light) around the stone. Most models of Ti tension settings would be somewhere at the end of the following links : http://www.boonerings.com/faq.htm http://www.titaniumera.com/facts.html www.absolutetitanium.com/atd-titanium.html www.titaniumeden.com/Education1-3.htm http://www.titaniumcommitment.com/techinfo.html http://www.aris-titanium.com/titanium-gold-rings.html http://www.furthers.com/ Hope this is not way off, of course Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/22/2004 10:10:56 PM | |
| P: 4/23/2004 9:22:12 AM | |
|
chialea Ideal Rock Total Posts: 520 Last Post: 9/3/2004 Member Since: 4/20/2004 |
Thanks for all the replies. I really like the pass-by style in platinum (so it'll match the other family jewelry). The one I was looking at was a G&A, which I found again here (http://64.70.201.108/platinumgoldtensionsetrings1a.htm) When I looked down the page, I notice they specify FIVE MM (!) which I have to assume is more-or-less in addition to the stone. I wasn't thinking of getting a particularly large stone, but a .75ct RB+another few mm on either side is getting pretty large. I think I may have to give up and agree with win -- the passby styles are better on bigger fingers. Even the look-alike tension passby settings are probably pretty big. On that note, I'd have to say that the thing I would like most, and the thing I've spent hours looking for on the web is "how does X setting look on a finger". Fay Cullen does it, but for just about everything else, I've been out of luck. Everyone's hands are different, but it's very hard to get any idea without some sort of scale like that.
|
| Posted: 4/23/2004 9:22:12 AM | |
| P: 4/23/2004 9:45:49 AM | |
|
valeria101 Ideal Rock Total Posts: 14,048 Last Post: 4/30/2006 Member Since: 8/29/2003 |
This is quite dainty ring... starting with the size of the diamond (not weight, but the length and width) and the size of your finger, it should be easy to put pen on paper and figure out how the ring would look like on hand.  Hope the picture below helps too... I suspect 5mm could well be the total height for a small (3-3.5mm deep) diamond.  Ana "The greatest experts are only as good as the sum total of what they have seen." [Souren Melikian] |
| Posted: 4/23/2004 9:45:49 AM | |
 Previous Page
|
Next Page 
|
Contact Us | Back Home | Privacy Statement | Forum Agreement | Forum Policies | |
| Ideal BB Version: 0.1.5.4.beta1 | Message forum software powered by the Ideal BB |
| |
Pricescope -
Knowledge -
Diamond Prices -
Tools -
Resources -
About
© 2000-2009 Pricescope. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Disclaimer
forum archives
