Are rings too thin these days?

[LALove]

I'd just like to thank you Kenny for starting this thread as well as everyone else who responded. I had always assumed that these thin bands/rings were totally safe since so many top/highly regarded jewelers are making them. I love the look of a huge stone with a thin band and had planned to get something similar for my upgrade- I would not have thought to go over the durability of that design with the jeweler.

 

[slg47]

so, what should consumers do to ensure their rings are structurally sound? my ring tapers to 1.6 mm at the top...does it pose a durability risk? (yes, I understand from reading this thread that ALL rings except for a 8 mm super thick heavy fit band will have some durability risk...just curious about what care I should take?)

 

[diamondringlover]

I know my post has no bearing, but I will say that I simply adore thin settings, they make my heart go pitter patter, I just love them, however, I am looking to have my rings reset and I want them to last I do not want to baby them, I want to wear them, they are my wedding rings and I want to wear them so I will not go with a thin ring, I will go with some rings that are a little thicker so that they will last and I dont have to baby them (I know to take them off when doing housework and nasty work that will mess them up). I have Pricescope to thank for this, I have soaked up all this knowledge and I am going to make an informed decision. But my heart still goes pitter patter when I see these stunning beautiful thin rings.

 

[Kaleigh]

Yes some are too thin.. The jewelers need to say no. Many have. Even when the customer says, I don't care I want it to be such and such. I love it when the vendors say NO... It won't work, and my name is attached to it, so that's it... It's like going to a plastic surgeon, someone down the road will say yes, and when the bridge falls off... There ya go...

I know it was cool to have the super thin band, micro pave... But how many of us have had problems?? I don't even wear my asscher RHR... I can't afford to send it back for fixing. I am so over this, and really loved it ... But now not so much.. DD wears it more than I do. I hate the heart break of having a stone fall out, and I baby my rings.. TLC to the MAX...

 

[Love Street]

I know it was cool to have the super thin band, micro pave... But how many of us have had problems?? I don't even wear my asscher RHR... I can't afford to send it back for fixing. I am so over this, and really loved it ... But now not so much.. DD wears it more than I do. I hate the heart break of having a stone fall out, and I baby my rings.. TLC to the MAX...

Yes, this is what I'm wondering too - how many problems have their been with thin rings, pave or not, platinum or gold? I don't have a good sense for the generally longevity of these types of pieces, and I've been here on and off since 2003. That's enough time for me to see clearly that shared prongs chew, and melee might fall, but what else and to what degree?

Starting this topic was a great public service. I imagine that when someone's ring warps or continually loses stones it could be depressing and someone might not want to come and post about it, especially if it's just "wear" or "aging" of the piece. When I noticed my 2.2mm shared prong band was out of round, I was surprised and a little perturbed, but I didn't come right out and share that experience. I would definitely be interested to hear what types of maintenance and care issues PSers have had and information surrounding that (use of the ring, etc).

And while I have come close to buying my own pave eternity band(s), this thread is a good reminder of why I have hesitated and will probably not go that route for a ring I plan to wear every day - I know myself and I know I'm not up for the babying and TLC they seem to require. (I will continue to get my fix by drooling over the SMTB threads....)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I know my post has no bearing, but I will say that I simply adore thin settings, they make my heart go pitter patter, I just love them, however, I am looking to have my rings reset and I want them to last I do not want to baby them, I want to wear them, they are my wedding rings and I want to wear them so I will not go with a thin ring, I will go with some rings that are a little thicker so that they will last and I dont have to baby them (I know to take them off when doing housework and nasty work that will mess them up). I have Pricescope to thank for this, I have soaked up all this knowledge and I am going to make an informed decision. But my heart still goes pitter patter when I see these stunning beautiful thin rings.

Of course it has bearing! You are expressing the dilemma many here feel. PS is an outstanding resource for those who stick around and read! You have also made an excellent point that while we may dream of some of the delicate pave rings we see on here, the reality is that some of them are really not suited for everyday wear. And we all need to remember that when we shop for ourselves!

I just want to tell people that 2.0-2.5mm rings are still THIN!!! Especially compared with the past when 3mm and even wider was very common! My sisters have been married a long time like me, and both still wear wider yg sets. They are not into jewelry trends and I think wonder why I have changed to relatively thin platinum rings! So to most of the world, 2-2.5mm is still thin and elegant!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

slg, you see where your shank connects to the part with the stones? If that is where the 1.6mm is, that is also where the thickness is the greatest on the sides. So I don't think your ring is fragile because of that.

 

[slg47]

yeah, I was noticing that. I think it should be OK, it is not SUPER delicate for sure, and I will definitely take it to a jeweler occasionally for inspection to make sure!

 

[CharmyPoo]

Gee .. for me, I love the look and know the risk. I stand by my decision because I don't want a thicker ring. A safer ring that I don't love does no good to me because that ring is going to be really safe sitting in the ring box unworn. I know what rings I have and I treat those rings more carefully - in my work, I don't use my hands a lot.

 

[Natylad]

Kenny this is an excellent point that you're making and thank you for starting this thread.
So, my greek jeweller, who sourced my stone and made my setting too, refuses to make any ER settings under 2mm and that's when the shank is plain, because if it has pave', he makes it even thicker. And if you ask him to make the ring thinner, he just refuses. As simple as that. I know for a fact that some of his customers think that he is stubborn and a little weird, but i like the fact that he has a very strong opinion when it comes to two things: 1. The quality of the diamonds that he uses for all his pieces, including the melee, 2. The quality and durability of the settings. He specifically explained to me that he will never agree to source a diamond that's less than VVS2 clarity, F color and Ex cut for my ring, no matter what i say and even if i gave up my upgrading rights in written (at the end he even sold me an E color stone!!!). And he said that he'd never make a very thin setting that could jeopardise the safety of the ring and his...good reputation. He claimed that losing one customer's business -in case he/she doesn't want to understand what's safer for his/her piece- is acceptable for him, but selling custom made pieces with his signature that fail and give the wrong impression about the quality of his work is UNACCEPTABLE and if somebody doesn't understand this they should take their business elsewhere.
For a moment i thought that he was...a little rude, but afterwards i totally understood where he was coming from and i appreciated his attitude, because i respect vendors who won't just try to grab your money now and have you deal with the problems later and who also consider it their responsibility to create pieces which are safe, regardless of what the customer says...I'm sure that none of his customers are complaining about wearing rings with slightly thicker shanks which never fail them

 

[bright&shiny]

Kenny, great post. For the rest of us non-engineers, what other structural issues should we be considering?

• Is there an ideal ratio of band size to stone size, or setting height?
  How thin is too thin - and in what circumstances.

• And how about prongs - height - distance between stones for multiple stone settings - or any of the many other elements that combined as structure and art make our hearts flutter?

Seriously - I love the data re: stone specs, various images, etc.... I would love this data, too.

 

[diva rose]

Yes.
See Michael E.'s excellent post on this topic in Harriet's thread about her LM solitaire.
https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/head-s-up-on-mege-s-solitaires-t155744-30.html

I agree with Lula - Michael's post was very informative.

I have thin bands wedding and e-ring - both are exactly 2mm each in platinum.
My jeweller did advise me about the pros & cons of having thin bands during the design process. For my Ering - he did not want to go under 2mm and advised me against it. I am been very fortunate to have a wonderful jeweller in Sydney.

Would I have known the dangers of thin bands if he didn't warn me about it? Nope - no idea at all.

I think it's pretty much given that if your piece is delicate - most likely it will be more fragile than something that is solid.

I love delicate pieces and now know the risks - but I'll still get them depending on the setting such as bands with no centre stones.

 

[Imdanny]

Look at the national debt.

OT, Kenny, but since you brought it up maybe a subject for a different thread.

Briefly, no country sovereign in its own currency can go bankrupt, period.

A household debt and government debt are not analogous.

Yes, they really can issue debt, print money if you will, until hell freezes over.

The Republic has always been in debt since its founding and has never defaulted.

Many people have this idea that they're going to have to pay $13 trillion out of their taxes.

They're not. That's not how the money was created. That's not the way it ever could or will be "paid back."

The government in a fiat money system such as ours simply credits accounts. Anyone who tells you it works differently is ignorant or lying.

Government elites have a political motive for telling lies about how the financial system truly works but since I can't talk about politics I'll stop here.

But, yes, many rings are too thin to be durable, however stylish they may be. I've been shocked myself by how many rings pop stones out on a regular basis and although fewer in number how many platinum rings go out of round. It doesn't sound like fun to me at all.

I'm not a high maintenance person. That's why I gave up my mechanical watch hobby.

 

[yssie]

Kenny, great post. For the rest of us non-engineers, what other structural issues should we be considering?

• Is there an ideal ratio of band size to stone size, or setting height?
  How thin is too thin - and in what circumstances.

• And how about prongs - height - distance between stones for multiple stone settings - or any of the many other elements that combined as structure and art make our hearts flutter?

Seriously - I love the data re: stone specs, various images, etc.... I would love this data, too.

Easy to reason out, not so easy to quantify -

A) We have the Vickers scale for hardness by indentation (permanent, plastic deformation of the metal surface), which puts 950/ir ~80, 900/ir ~110, 950/ru ~130 by one website I found* Wiki page w/ Vickers test setup: load with a pyramid-shaped bottom is applied with (constant) force to a metal, and amount of indentation (area of indentation to measure this amount) indicates "hardness" by this definition, Vickers value (HV) ~ F/A - w/ F constant and HV known to be large, then the area of plastic deformation is smaller - for a given thickness a 950/ru shank would require more applications of a given force to dent the shank to a given degree than 950/ir.
But - how do you make a universally precise enough "okay"/"not okay" chart from this, given the geometric variations involved *and* the likelihood of whacking more in one direction or another depending on wearer habits, finger shape..?

B) Yield strength = point beyond which tensile stress results in deformation for this discussion. Assume a simple stress/strain relationship - top diagram of the wiki page. Since stress is inherently defined as force (in pounds) per square inch, to cause a given strain (deformation of l/L on that wiki page), if smaller area a smaller force is required.
But - how do you make a universally precise enough "okay"/"not okay" chart from this, given the geometric variations involved *and* the likelihood of whacking more in one direction or another depending on wearer habits, finger shape..?

*ignoring other treatments, which I know you really couldn't in practice

 

[rosetta]

Well the jeweller of my ring refused to make the shank smaller than 2mm unless I signed a document voiding their warranty. They categorically stated the ring would be structurally unsound and I would be taking a risk.

I listened to them and kept the shank at 2mm. The warranty stands.

I would expect any responsible vendor to act similarly. I don't feel Mege really does that. As an overseas buyer, I am loathe to get into a workmanship/maintenance fiasco.

 

[yssie]

Gee .. for me, I love the look and know the risk. I stand by my decision because I don't want a thicker ring. A safer ring that I don't love does no good to me because that ring is going to be really safe sitting in the ring box unworn. I know what rings I have and I treat those rings more carefully - in my work, I don't use my hands a lot.

Charmy... that's precisely the point.

People have this misunderstanding that to be "unsafe" with a thin ring you have to do dishes with it on, carry something really heavy, bang it, punch a wall like the example earlier.. you don't. You just need to push your roller-chair away from your desk with your hands with your ring touching the corner at the wrong angle, catch a falling textbook the wrong way from your ring's POV once or many times, grip your steering wheel a certain way as you drive to work everyday or hold your cellphone a certain way everyday through your commute, tap your fingers waiting for the elevator, clap your hands - or worse, clap your hands whilst wearing rings on both hands. It's not just what you do with your hands either - every time you tense and relax your finger muscles, you are applying deforming stresses on your ring. My post two posts above this one explains why: any deforming from any applied pressure is the same whether it's b/c of a one-time whack or the result of many repetitions of a seemingly harmless - and quite possibly unconscious - action.

Obviously each buyer must weigh aesthetic and strength to his/her own needs and preferences... but it is naive to think that the pitfalls of weighing one strongly over the other don't apply to *you* because you believe you're being careful enough.

 

[CherryBlossom]

oh wow I am so happy you posted this because over the past few months I have been dealing with this in regards to my mom's ring. We have spoken to a dozen online vendors (who are on and off this site) along with jewelers at regular B&M. I have collected so much information on this issue and I agree with EVERYTHING that you have said. I think it's beyond just a thin band, but it also has to do w/ the type of pave and also if it's platinum or not.

My mom started out wanting to put her 2.5+ct asscher in a Harry Winston type replica or split shank/prong. She started out wanting a 1.5 mm V-cut/cutdown/fishtail pave. After speaking to vendor after vendor we came to realize that it was just a BAD idea for any diamond over 1.ct - if that at all- to be put into this type of setting. Some of the more reputable vendors that we came across (God bless MC2 and others) seem to be very hard core about making you sign some kind of waiver if you go this route and did not want to offer the same type of customer service care... that should send give you enough warning flags. My fiance, an engineer, broke down the basics mechanics of elasticity/flexibility/torque/metal breakdown. If you like this type of ring and insist on french cut/v-cut/cutdown/fishtail pave's to be used you are literally taking more and more metal out of the ring. It leaves little for the diamonds to hold on to throughout the shank. Furthermore, if you end up using platinum or even 18k gold you make the situation even worse. We all love platinum, but it is VERY soft. While you may not lose any platinum, it will move, warp, and change over time... add to that the whole "less metal" issue that's brought on by the v-cut pave's/3 sided pave issue and you got the perfect recipe for disaster. lets not even kid ourselves, no matter how careful we are w/ our rings we're going to end up knocking it around. My fiance told me that even simple lifting something, gripping the steering wheel too hard, or pulling a chair forward hard enough can do enough damage over time. And guess what? three weeks ago my friend bent her 1.7 mm v-cut pave ring by lifting her heavy laptop with just one hand. within seconds she had an indentation that looked "^" in her ring that she paid nearly $5k for (just setting) because she wanted it hand made. Pop pop pop and out came out three stones in the shank. Her 1 year warranty from the designer expired just 2 months ago, whomp whomp.

After collecting all of this info, my mom decided to to forgo the 1.5 mm shank (she's getting a 2.4+ mm instead) and also decided to let go of the v-cut/fishtail/cutdown pave. She opted for brightcut instead, which provides her with a delicate look without cutting out a bunch of metal. She really wants to keep this ring for years and more importantly wants it to be an heirloom piece. Why ruin all of that just for a thinner band? She's still going to baby the ring, but hopefully this will make things much better.

BTW, it was very eye opening to find out which vendors would warn us about these dangers and who wouldn't. About 60% of the vendors that we learned about via this site told us of the dangers and gave us warnings about having to baby the rings. One vendor directly told us not to do it and they are the one who suggested brightcut to us. we appreciate that very much, although we will not be using them this time around. Another group of vendors not only failed to warn us, but actually acted like it was not a big deal and in fact told us that the thin look was much better that was very insincere. I have so much respect for the vendors who not only warned us, but used it as an opportunity to educated/inform us without being condescending about it. One B&M vendor whose made some wonderful delicate pieces for us in the past (old school guy who makes gorgeous handmade pieces) in his super sweet and cute accent had this to say "you ladies keep saying less metal, less metal. I get it, you have the (yes, he said 'the') war with the metal because you are all delicate ballerinas who want the wonderful princess ring, but your ring is going to fall apart in a few years. The last five people who came in here had their rings made by others and I fix their ring, but it's not right that other stores do not tell them the truth. I want to make you something nice that will be a princess ring still but will always look gorgeous on your precious fingers, not break."

 

[CherryBlossom]

Well the jeweller of my ring refused to make the shank smaller than 2mm unless I signed a document voiding their warranty. They categorically stated the ring would be structurally unsound and I would be taking a risk.
.

This +1 is a jeweler I would trust. I honestly respect this on so many levels.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Yssie - I get all that and in agreement.

I guess my point is suck it up ... if you like thin rings then stop complaining and just recognize the risk. If you don't like thin rings, then good for you .. go get whatever you like. You being anybody in general. There aren't magical answers here for anyone because there are so many factors involved - the width and height (thiness in width can be balanced by thickness in height), size of diamond, shape of diamond, design, and on and on. Both my e-rings are probably "unsafe" but that's how I wanted them and I wear my rings happily. I am not deluded to blame everything on the jeweler if something happened to my rings due to daily wear.

If we talk specifically about Harriet's e-ring, the head prongs is what is becoming lose and it is not necessarily how thin the band is (this is my understanding - the head prongs are lose and not holding the diamond tightly). If she wants a thick and wide metal head surrounding the diamond, then so be it ... in my opinion, it won't look as good and probably not a whole lot safer (given it can be banged in tens and thousands of ways causing damage - heck, she can even open the door and rub it the wrong way). Harriet is not saying that the shank is falling apart on her in the specific example she gave so all this 1.5 mm talk don't matter because the prongs is probably less than that. The wedding band is different but that appears to be a workmanship problem versus a "too thin" problem. Sorry Harriet for using you as an example.

My last thought - not directly related ... if someone has an issue with Leon Mege then stop recommending him and provide better alternatives. I have yet to see a receommendation that can rival what Leon can do in terms of the flow and lines of a custom made ring. Thiness perhaps yes but definetly not the overall flow and curves. I am very happy with my Leon rings and will continue using him until I can find someone better.

 

[Harriet]

CharmyPoo,

How can the client assume the risk (or, as you put it, "suck it up"), if she is unaware of the risk? As I said earlier, the jeweller is in a better position to know about it. Thus, he has a duty to warn the client.

When I placed my orders with Mege, I stressed durability. I asked for my rings to be delicate, but made it clear that durability was not to be compromised. He assured me that it wouldn't.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I hears ya Kens. The only thing I would add to that is half the fault being the wearer of the ring for asking for a thin band. I mean, until just like 3 seconds ago, I never even knew it was an issue to be brought up. In my mind, I see myself looking for a ring and seeing one in a photo or on the vendors website that's very very thin. It's there, right? So why/how would I even know to question it? I'm just looking at it thinking it's gorgeous and just my style, never knowing that durability could be an issue. I believe it is way more than half the vendor's responsibility to make sure the client is aware of the issues.

This is not a new issue nor a new debate - this topic has been coming up whenever there is a problem since I got here, before Harriet's rings were made. This information was a big part of why I designed my ring the way I did.

 

[Michael_E]

so, what should consumers do to ensure their rings are structurally sound?

This can be very difficult, so your best bet is to ask the maker about what they do to maximize durability AND how they are willing to back up the pieces they make in the event that there is a problem with durability, (which is not obviously caused by an accident or abuse). Most makers of jewelry want to know how their piece are holding up and if there is a problem with constant loosening of stones or other difficulties they want to know about it.

my ring tapers to 1.6 mm at the top...does it pose a durability risk? (yes, I understand from reading this thread that ALL rings except for a 8 mm super thick heavy fit band will have some durability risk...just curious about what care I should take?)

You ring is an example of very good design. The 1.6mm thickness has no small stones embedded in it and it is accompanied by a much greater width and so is exceptionally strong and the center section holding the stones is well designed and made with the entire section being attached to the band at it's outermost extremities. This design can't be made any better, IMO.

The biggest problems with thin bands come when they are encrusted with diamonds on three sides, in which case the minimum dimensions depend on the sizes of the diamonds. You can get away with a 1.5mm band if the diamonds are 1mm or less in diameter, (though that will not work well if you're a very physical person who wants to wear their ring at all times). If you just use diamonds on the top of the band and leave the sides alone, (or engraved), you can get away with a very thin band...provided that it has sufficient thickness from the surface of the finger surface.

The other problem area in low durability setting comes from those that have large parts which are attached to the band at one thin point. In particular halo ring which have several supports that only hit the band at one spot. These little devils were pretty popular for a while and they resulted in more than a few people needing to have the entire halo re-attached to the band after bending badly or even breaking off. Here's an example of this sort of design, where the head section only attaches at one spot. You can make it work if that spot is large enough, but if it's not and you're rough on stuff, the outlook for long life is reduced.

 

[CherryBlossom]

Yssie - I get all that and in agreement.

I guess my point is suck it up ... if you like thin rings then stop complaining and just recognize the risk. If you don't like thin rings, then good for you .. go get whatever you like. You being anybody in general.

But here's the thing, how can someone that's purchasing a ring even know there is all of these risks? how can a random guy buying his girl an E-ring know about all of this? This is a consumer advocacy right? not just a site where people showoff and talk about their bling. If we are demanding vendors to show us better cuts, images, etc. why shouldn't we demand better service and education/information about long term wear and risks like this when we make these purchases?

Charmypoo, no offense (I swear!) but I've seen your beautiful rings over the past few months. You had the privilege to be blessed enough to be provided with the option to take your time looking for a designer and had your e-ring redesigned more than 2x. But most people out there simply cannot afford having two rings made multiple times by two different designers. And they do not have the option to switch one out for the other. They are only able to make this purchase once and want to make sure that it's done right. The reason why they come up with the funds to pay for the premiums of a more expensive designers like Leon Mege (and others that they learn about via this site) is because they assume that these vendors do EVERYTHING well (both aesthetically AND structurally)

Many people are new to the jewelery world and are putting a lot of their faith in the work of the designer... especially if they are so well known. I started reading PS years ago because of all the information about the cut of the diamonds themselves and because my family had some bad experience at B&M stores, I don't think that expectation to be informed should end with the cut and look of a diamond.

Most people trust the designer to explain the risks to them and assume that they would be told if these risks were high. Most people (like my mom before all of this) assumed that an e-ring yielding such high risks would simply not be designed. Although all of us expect some level of risk and know that we have to baby these delicate rings, I still didn't think that the possibility of damage was so high and practically inevitable... does that make me stupid? Did you read my story? I am telling you that there are vendors who do not say a thing about it and will carry on as usual. Most e-ring's are meant to be worn day in and day out, it is the vendors responsibility to educate the consumers and provide them with guidance and options.

 

[CherryBlossom]

The biggest problems with thin bands come when they are encrusted with diamonds on three sides, in which case the minimum dimensions depend on the sizes of the diamonds. You can get away with a 1.5mm band if the diamonds are 1mm or less in diameter, (though that will not work well if you're a very physical person who wants to wear their ring at all times). If you just use diamonds on the top of the band and leave the sides alone, (or engraved), you can get away with a very thin band...provided that it has sufficient thickness from the surface of the finger surface.

The other problem area in low durability setting comes from those that have large parts which are attached to the band at one thin point. In particular halo ring which have several supports that only hit the band at one spot. These little devils were pretty popular for a while and they resulted in more than a few people needing to have the entire halo re-attached to the band after bending badly or even breaking off. Here's an example of this sort of design, where the head section only attaches at one spot. You can make it work if that spot is large enough, but if it's not and you're rough on stuff, the outlook for long life is reduced.

This is great info to know. let me ask you, how much of a role does the softness of the metal play with all of this? I know you mentioned platinum earlier, but is there a point to consider 18K or dare I say even 14K gold w/ some of these thinner bands? would that make any major difference.

I also noticed in the picture you posted you mentioned the upside down pyramid as one of the major issues when it comes to damaging the ring. Do you think that as much of a risk exists rings that don't come down all in one place but have more of a "doughnut" Is this a bit safer than the inverted pyramid? or is there a way to secure the crown better and get this look besides making the band a bit wider?



How can this ring be made better?

 

[HopeDream]

Great thread!

I wonder how much the thin-ring trend has been affected by the renewed interest in antique/vintage pieces - rings that have already been thinned by a lifetime ( or two) or wear? If a buyer sees a thin old antique piece, and then compares it to modern pieces available without realizing that the antique piece wasn't that thin when new. For example: http://cgi.ebay.ca/Antique-Platinum...1?pt=Vintage_Fine_Jewelry&hash=item53e5e06d0b Gorgeous? - yes - durable? -no

I'm not sure that some of these older pieces were even designed for daily wear. I think that once married, (in a household where the wife did any work) the engagement ring would have been replaced by a plain solid wedding ring, and tucked in a jewellery box to be worn at church on sunday, on special occasions, and at social gatherings. I think that diamonds for daily wear didn't realy get going until the 30's -50's which featured sturdy hard wearing designs that protected the diamond http://cgi.ebay.ca/Vintage-14k-Whit...nd_Solitaire_with_Accents&hash=item336482f5a6

I also wonder about how different manufacturing process affect durability? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrect?) that antique die-struck pieces were able to be thinner and still have integrity, because of how the die-struck process compresses the metal. I expect that modern cast, or had built pieces don't have the same benefits of die-struck pieces, and so can be made to the same thickness.

Lately I've been felling a bit awkward about my thick ( by PS standards) 2.5mm setting.
Kenny: Thank you for reminding me why I chose the durability route. I feel better about my setting now.

 

[slg47]

MichaelE, thanks for your reply and your input in this thread. I feel much better about my ring now (and sorry for the mini-threadjack, but it is hard to read this thread without being concerned!)

 

[Michael_E]

But here's the thing, how can someone that's purchasing a ring even know there is all of these risks? how can a random guy buying his girl an E-ring know about all of this? no offense, but this is a consumer advocacy right? not just a site where people showoff and talk about their bling. If we are demanding vendors to show us better cuts, images, etc. why shouldn't we demand better service and education/information about long term wear and risks like this when we make these purchases?

One problem is that we, as jewelers, ASSUME that people will consider what they are doing when wearing their jewelry and act accordingly, (meaning remove it when you are doing anything other than eating dinner and shopping). Some things can be worn indefinitely if you are careful and won't last ten minutes if you are not careful. Here's an example: You buy a new sapphire eternity ring and the jeweler says, " now be careful since this ring is not as durable as a ring with not stones to the inside of your hand". O.K., well it's time to take the kids to their soccer game. Off you go with rings on both hands and a soccer game in play. Your child scores a point and you clap those two hands, (and rings), together and half of the sapphires in the new eternity band fall out. Or you are into rock climbing or gardening or weight lifting. There are a thousand things that you do that your mother wouldn't have considered doing while wearing her jewelry. Whose "fault" is it that the jewelry doesn't last?

Well there's enough blame to spread all over everyone and blaming after the fact doesn't help much so the best approach is to ask about durability when buying a piece and if you're going to buy things which can not take what you're going to dish out, then either remove those pieces when being rough or only buy pieces which can take the abuse. On the other hand, if you ask and are assured that a piece will, "be fine" then you should also have some recourse if it turns out to be less than fine. Ask your favorite vendor what happens if there is a problem and get the answer in writing. Most vendors want you to come back, even if it's with a problem.

I had a client once who worked in as hardware store and had to stock plumbing fixtures. I sold her a fairly substantial aquamarine ring and told her, "Now you can't wear this while you're working or you'll mess up both the setting and the stone". Six months later and that beautiful faceted aqua is a cabochon and she's wondering why the thing didn't last very long. Under some circumstances nothing will have good durability.

Most people trust the designer to explain the risks to them and assume that they would be told if these risks were high. Most people (like my mom before all of this) assumed that a ring that could hold such risks would simply not be designed.

This should be the case and I think usually is when you're dealing with a custom jeweler. When buying from a mall shop you may be talking with a salesperson who knows less about this than you do. Then you have different levels of risk which are associated with types of activities that the wearer is involved in. There are a lot of women who are very active these days and it's just not possible to tell what they may be doing while wearing a piece. This puts the burden of attending to durability issues on the person who's buying by making sure that the jeweler realizes what the jewelry they're making may encounter. It's very tough to cover all bases and even after a discussion, problems can occur.

I think that the end result of this should be to make jeweler like they make cars. Off road jewelry, racing jewelry, all around jewelry, (think van or SUV), etc. Probably wouldn't sell very well would it?

All of us expect some level of risk and know that we have to baby these delicate rings a lot more, but trust me even I didn't know that the possibility of damage was so high... does that make me stupid? Did you read my story? I am telling you that there are vendors who do not say a thing about it and will carry on as usual. Most e-ring's are meant to be worn day in and day out, it is the vendors responsibility to educate the consumers and provide them with guidance and options.

No, you're not stupid and should expect more. You need to do more than "expect" though. You can demand better answers from those that you're dealing with and vote for those people who are satisfactory, with both your presence and dollars. The possibility of damage is related to what sort of activities you do and so may not be as high as you think it is. After all many of these more fragile pieces are still in fine shape after years of service, (or at least there's not a lot of screaming going on). You also have the option now of asking questions about these sorts of things on the 'net and so can get better answers than you may through some vendors.

 

[LGK]

HopeDream, actually, vintage filigree rings were definitely designed for daily wear. What the fashion was, was to put the e-ring on the RH alone, and wear a band alone on your left, after marriage. Most filigree rings you see now were worn daily for decades. And they're very worn, most of them. The difference is, most filigree rings were die struck, which makes for much lighter weight and more durability. Also the alloy was different for PT- usually 900 PT/ 10 IR. But yeah, people did wear them daily, for sure. (As you mentioned, HD! ) The die striking process doesn't have problems with porosity, like casting. Also most vintage/antique settings simply used more exposed/non diamond encrusted metal than micropave today uses- which also made for more durability IMO.

ETA: This is a great thread. I had wondered on the durability of the current fashion for uber-thin rings. Personally 2mm looks teensy to me, and plenty tiny.

 

[kenny]

Michael E. thanks so much for all you've taught us here.
I'm surprised other vendors have not spoken up but perhaps they see this topic as a lose/lose for their business, and wish it would just go away.

Everyone I know is aware I'm into diamonds so they ask me for referrals about diamonds and rings for their family and friends.
My referrals, here and in real life, made have probably put a lot of coin into the pockets of companies I've bought from like WF, GOG, Boonerings, Gelin Abaci, and Leibish.

After seeing how forthcoming and honest Michael E. has been on this sensitive topic, guess whom I'll be recommending when asked whom to go to for delicate settings?

 

[CherryBlossom]

Off you go with rings on both hands and a soccer game in play. Your child scores a point and you clap those two hands, (and rings), together and half of the sapphires in the new eternity band fall out. Or you are into rock climbing or gardening or weight lifting. There are a thousand things that you do that your mother wouldn't have considered doing while wearing her jewelry. Whose "fault" is it that the jewelry doesn't last?

no no, the jeweler is not at fault at that point. IMHO, the jeweler is only at fault (in this case when we're dealing super thin bands) when they simply give us the impression that THEIR specific workmanship is sooo good that it wont really compromise the integrity of the ring, OR when they just happen to forget mentioning certain issues - like the drama w/ the inverted pyramid, that both you and Yssie brought up - I had not even considered that "pyramid" issue to be a problem a few months ago, and apparently neither did some of the vendors that I spoke with. It really upsets me that they wouldn't even mention a single thing about it so that my mom and I could have considered our options or even understood that we were clearly missing something about the durability of the ring while being overcome by the power of the bling. When you go in to have something made, you are obviously going to be looking at it aesthetically, it's the job of the jeweler to break things down and explain the structural aspects. A novice like me or even my mom simply does not have the eye to pick those things out and scrutinize it.

If the jeweler provides relative guidance and assurance that you can wear your ring everyday but you have to be gentle with it, possibly not wear a wedding band, or just overall advice about these things and you do the opposite, you are clearly the one at fault NOT the vendor. But what I am saying is that I know plenty of vendors who don't do that and in fact provide a lot of assurance that everything is going to be fine as long as you baby the ring and basically don't do heavy lifting, washing dishes, etc. with it.

On the other hand, if you ask and are assured that a piece will, "be fine" then you should also have some recourse if it turns out to be less than fine. Ask your favorite vendor what happens if there is a problem and get the answer in writing. Most vendors want you to come back, even if it's with a problem.

you are 110% right, but here's the other issue at play. Most people are not purchasing jewelery day in and day out or even year in and year out. It's intimidating to deal with some jewelers and unless you have some experience there's not a way of even knowing what to ask for. Most people deal with it as if they are making any expensive electronic purchase. Most people don't even know the difference between an appraisal and Gemologist certificate. They don't know the correct terms and furthermore are afraid to say "hey miss/mister could you please put it in writing that my ring is going to be ok" - I'm sure there's some kind of thread around here that I am just overlooking, but is there like a primer 101 of what to look for, ask about/for, and expect from a jeweler (especially B&M variety) if there was maybe something that was a checklist of sorts that would be helpful. I swear that there was something like that here a while ago, I don't know where it went. It covered all sorts of issues from explaining appraisals, how to get insurance, asking for things to be written up specifically on the receipt and work order forms etc. etc. Does anyone have that?

I think that the end result of this should be to make jeweler like they make cars. Off road jewelry, racing jewelry, all around jewelry, (think van or SUV), etc. Probably wouldn't sell very well would it?

True, good point.

No, you're not stupid and should expect more. You need to do more than "expect" though. You can demand better answers from those that you're dealing with and vote for those people who are satisfactory, with both your presence and dollars. The possibility of damage is related to what sort of activities you do and so may not be as high as you think it is. After all many of these more fragile pieces are still in fine shape after years of service, (or at least there's not a lot of screaming going on). You also have the option now of asking questions about these sorts of things on the 'net and so can get better answers than you may through some vendors.

All great points, and thanks again for taking the time to respond to all of it. Let me ask you, how does one go about demanding all these things from a jeweler they like and want to continue working with? what's the best way to approach all of this before demanding it in writing, that can just be so awkward at times and where's the line of demanding too much and sounding a bit loopy?