Experts, please advise: should this ever happen when a diamond is set?

[Kim N]

I bought a classic Scott Kay solitaire setting from a very reputable vendor. The diamond was set perfectly. Recently, I upgraded the diamond and went back to this vendor to have the new diamond set into the ring. The work was done by the vendor's in-house jeweler.

The jeweler did everything as I requested, except for one thing. I had asked for the diamond to be set "as low as possible without the culet touching the ring." This was the same request I'd made when the first diamond was set, so I believed there would be no issues in meeting the request. Instead, the jeweler drilled a sort of "crater" or bowl at the base of the prongs in which the culet now sits.

I've never seen this happen on any ring. The ring, which was perfect before, now has a hole in between the two surprise diamonds. Should this have happened, and is this easy to fix? I believe the request to have a diamond set "as low as possible" is pretty standard and certainly shouldn't mean "drill a hole into the ring to make that happen." I'm confused, and pretty disappointed.

I'd really appreciate any advice you all might have.

Before, with old diamond:

 

[Kim N]

After, with new diamond:

 

[Kim N]

Sorry the pictures turned out huge.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Is the new diamond a lot larger? It looks like to me that maybe he had to do that because the new stone is deeper and the prongs already had notches in them from the first stone, so he couldn''t exactly raise the height of the prongs to accommodate the new stone. I''d be interested to hear the measurements for both stones. A larger stone often requires a whole new head on the ring, and it looks like maybe this stone was too large for your setting.

 

[JulieN]

maybe the upgraded stone is too big, and you need to remake your ring...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Actually, I see they did change the head design. The prongs start out at a different place on the base of the shank in the second picture. The prongs came up from the surprise diamonds on the first picture. I'm afraid it was a mistake to try and fit the larger stone in that setting. I agree that it doesn't look good.

 

[Kim N]

diamondseeker and Julie, thanks for your input. The new stone is fairly larger than the old one (depth difference is about 4.17 mm vs. 4.55 mm), but they assured me that they could build out the prongs with more metal. Because they were extending the prongs'' length anyway, I understood that to mean they would make them long enough for the new stone. It seems like maybe the problem was that they didn''t extend the prongs enough, so they had to push the diamond down into the setting to make it work. I would have liked to have found out about this before it was done--that''s why I''m disappointed. I just hope the setting isn''t completely ruined now.

 

[110203]

I think you should take it back to your jeweler and let them know of your concern. I am a big fan of showing off the diamond, and that is completely hiding it. I liked the way your first diamond was set.

Good Luck!

 

[neatfreak]

It looks like a size issue to me too, but if they said they could extend the prongs and realized they couldn''t, they should have let you know before they altered the setting.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

What is the stone diameter difference? I wonder because of the way they altered where the prongs are located at the base.

 

[arjunajane]

I'm sorry to say Kim but I would be very disappointed with this - it looks quite odd to have the bottom dug in like that -and who wants to hide their culet anyways?
I would definately not be accepting this, unless of course they had run all the modifications past you first - which it sounds like they didn't.

Imho they have completely changed the look of your setting, as now the prongs start from a different place, as DS mentioned.

 

[Kim N]

Thank you, 110203 and neatfreak. I''m not really sure how to approach the next step. Given that I believe I should have been notified before they made such a big change to the setting--and I wouldn''t have even proceeded if I''d known, would it be fair to ask them to fix it at no extra charge?

 

[Kim N]

DS, the diameter difference is 6.75 vs. 7.5.

arjunajane, I agree, thanks for chiming in. The changes weren''t communicated to me before the work was done. I know the other difference is that the prongs start at a different place, and I wish that change hadn''t been made either, but I definitely want the crater issue fixed first, if I had to pick battles.

 

[jess1981]

I would be so upset too. They should have communicated with you and got approval before they made such a drastic change. If the diamond was to big for your setting it is their job to tell you that. I think they should absolutely fix it at no charge to you.

 

[strmrdr]

The ring is to small for the stone and to move the prongs out further at the bottom would make it look nasty so I think they did a pretty good job with what they had.

 

[girlie-girl]

Uggg... I''m certain that wasn''t what you had envisioned when you made your request.

I''m not a big fan of how the prongs now come out from the sides of the surprise stones. It was so much more fluid looking before so I can imagine your disappointment.

I hope you''re able to get it fixed and looking more like the original. Good luck!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I''m sorry to say that I''ll have to agree with Storm. That setting was not made to accommodate a 7.5mm stone and that is your real problem. At this point, I''d probably have it sent to Scott Kay and tell them to make a hole new head for it. I just don''t see that one being able to be fixed without being remade completely.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/21/2008 9:52:35 PM
Author: girlie-girl
Uggg... I''m certain that wasn''t what you had envisioned when you made your request.

I''m not a big fan of how the prongs now come out from the sides of the surprise stones. It was so much more fluid looking before so I can imagine your disappointment.


I hope you''re able to get it fixed and looking more like the original. Good luck!

That would take a total remake of the ring.

 

[Kim N]

Thank you, jess, Karl, girlie-girl, and DS.

Date: 11/21/2008 9:38:46 PM
Author: strmrdr
The ring is to small for the stone and to move the prongs out further at the bottom would make it look nasty so I think they did a pretty good job with what they had.

Karl, I was wondering, instead of drilling the hole, would it have been possible to just make the prongs longer and set the diamond up a little higher?

I agree that a new head would have been the best choice from the beginning. However, when they told me they could set the new diamond by extending the prongs, I trusted that opinion. Again, if I had been notified that these were the changes they'd have to make, I'd never have proceeded. Because I wasn't notified, I'm trying to figure out if a refund for cost of the work would be appropriate.

 

[girlie-girl]

Date: 11/21/2008 10:08:32 PM
Author: strmrdr

That would take a total remake of the ring.

If it were my ring, that's what I'd want. It's a shame communications weren't more clear between the involved parties because if they had been, it seems this whole situation could have been avoided.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/21/2008 10:41:56 PM
Author: Kim N
Thank you, jess, Karl, girlie-girl, and DS.

Date: 11/21/2008 9:38:46 PM

Author: strmrdr

The ring is to small for the stone and to move the prongs out further at the bottom would make it look nasty so I think they did a pretty good job with what they had.

Karl, I was wondering, instead of drilling the hole, would it have been possible to just make the prongs longer and set the diamond up a little higher?


I agree that a new head would have been the best choice from the beginning. However, when they told me they could set the new diamond by extending the prongs, I trusted that opinion. Again, if I had been notified that these were the changes they''d have to make, I''d never have proceeded. Because I wasn''t notified, I''m trying to figure out if a refund for cost of the work would be appropriate.

not without moving the base if you extend the prongs you run over on the spacing without bending them or a really funky angle.
A refund of the amount paid for the rework isn''t unreasonable.

 

[Kim N]

Date: 11/21/2008 11:04:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

not without moving the base if you extend the prongs you run over on the spacing without bending them or a really funky angle.
A refund of the amount paid for the rework isn''t unreasonable.

Thanks, Karl. That''s very helpful information.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 11/21/2008 11:07:53 PM
Author: Kim N

Date: 11/21/2008 11:04:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

not without moving the base if you extend the prongs you run over on the spacing without bending them or a really funky angle.
A refund of the amount paid for the rework isn''t unreasonable.

Thanks, Karl. That''s very helpful information.

Or not necessarily a refund...but maybe they should cover the cost of sending it to Scott Kay to redo (or at least part of it).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think it is quite likely the ring has been adjusted now to the way it would have been if you had that sized diamond in that sized mount. Also it might be possible to (professionally) clean the backs of the suprise diamonds now (looks like you could not before?).

 

[bgray]

to be fair--perhaps when you said can you make it fit they took your question at face value: they decided that they could tinker with it to make it fit. I have been in this situation before............

 

[arjunajane]

I really don''t see where the gray is in this situation - Kim should''ve been notified that to fit her new diamond, the appearance of the setting would have to be changed quite dramatically. As she has said, had she been consulted she would not have continued. I would''ve been the same way.
To me at least, the changes would take the shine off of having bought an authentic designer setting, as now its basically not..it only resembles one (I''m sorry Kim, please don''t think me cruel for saying so, I''m just being honest)..

imho, the only fair solution would be an offer to pay for a remake, as it seems a repair is not possible.

 

[honey22]

Date: 11/22/2008 1:40:38 AM
Author: arjunajane
I really don''t see where the gray is in this situation - Kim should''ve been notified that to fit her new diamond, the appearance of the setting would have to be changed quite dramatically. As she has said, had she been consulted she would not have continued. I would''ve been the same way.
To me at least, the changes would take the shine off of having bought an authentic designer setting, as now its basically not..it only resembles one (I''m sorry Kim, please don''t think me cruel for saying so, I''m just being honest)..

imho, the only fair solution would be an offer to pay for a remake, as it seems a repair is not possible.

Ditto AJ. If they couldn''t simply set the stone lower without making the hole etc, they should have notified the customer. I am suprised they didn''t just tell you initially they couldn''t fit that size stone into that head. Another case of the customer won''t notice I guess. Didn''t count on the customer being a PSer I guess

 

[LGK]

Uh. Yeah, that''s not good. Sorry

! I''d be way irritated that they didn''t say "oh, we''re fiddling around with the entire head of the ring by the way." That weird hole they made for the culet is definitely visually irritating. And the way they redid the prongs in a totally different place changes the flow of the piece too. It surprises me they even tried to pack a stone that size in a setting for such a smaller stone in the first place, especially one that the smaller stone was very low set in.

I''d politely (first anyway!) talk with them about why they didn''t notify you that they were drastically changing the ring. Hopefully they''ll have some sort of reasonable solution they can offer, like sending the ring to the designer for a redone head or something.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 11/22/2008 12:06:30 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 11/21/2008 11:07:53 PM

Author: Kim N

Date: 11/21/2008 11:04:35 PM

Author: strmrdr


not without moving the base if you extend the prongs you run over on the spacing without bending them or a really funky angle.

A refund of the amount paid for the rework isn't unreasonable.

Thanks, Karl. That's very helpful information.

Or not necessarily a refund...but maybe they should cover the cost of sending it to Scott Kay to redo (or at least part of it).

I agree. they really should have had it sent to Scott Kay to begin with and not tried messing with it themselves IMO.

Who is the vendor if you don't mind sharing? I understand if you'd prefer not to say

Not trying to judge them b/c I think a lot of jewelers will try and do things themselves. But, if someone is purchasing from them in the future we can advice them to insist that any work to be done on designer settings should be sent to the designer.

 

[Kim N]

Thank you, everyone, for the additional input. I appreciate your opinions. I''m going to talk to the vendor on Monday and see how to go from there.

Date: 11/22/2008 1:25:06 PM
Author: mrssalvo

I agree. they really should have had it sent to Scott Kay to begin with and not tried messing with it themselves IMO.

Who is the vendor if you don''t mind sharing? I understand if you''d prefer not to say

Not trying to judge them b/c I think a lot of jewelers will try and do things themselves. But, if someone is purchasing from them in the future we can advice them to insist that any work to be done on designer settings should be sent to the designer.

mrss, I''d prefer not to share the vendor name at this time because I''ve received excellent service from them so far and really have enjoyed working with them.

I also want to note again that I now know that sending the ring to Scott Kay would have been the best choice to begin with, but I chose to have the vendor work on it in-house because when they told me they could set the new diamond by simply extending the prongs, I trusted that opinion. It seemed the easier alternative at the time. Of course, if I''d been told of all the changes they''d need to make, I''d have certainly had it sent to Scott Kay instead.