Friends don't let friends set their diamond off-center

[Victor Canera]

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to share a suggestion to the community based on past experience and because I’ve had this debate with clients in the past.

Setting a round diamond off center in a four prong arrangement causes the prongs to sit right on top of two facet junctions, namely between two upper girdle facets. This means that the prongs are not on top of a flat surface which is not as secure as having them on top of a flat surface. This might or not become an issue with the prongs over time. Some unknowns such as the thickness of the prongs (even the type of metal) can effect whether this becomes a problem. Please refer to the image below:


My suggestion is to set a round diamond with the arrows facing the NSEW arrangement. Doing this causes the prongs to sit right on top of a single Bezel facet which is nice and flat and more secure.


All the best,

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Victor!

This is a great thing to share with us and very useful info we can use when this comes up, thank you!

 

[whitewave]

Yes! The illustration is helpful, thanks.

 

[bright ice]

Excellent recommendations Victor, thanks!

 

[kenny]

Victor, while the content itself of your OP seems reasonable and mechanically sound, your post may violate one of the PS policies for Trade members ... Do not create fear-based doubts in consumers' minds in order to scare them into using your services.

A civilian posting the same thing would not run afoul of PS policy.

IMO while restrictive PS's trade member policies do keep this place from descending into a Turkish bazar where vendors shout and grab at every shopper who walks past their stall.

BTW, the OP had already been reported to admin so I'm not the only one who noticed this.

 

[gm89uk]

Personally I don't see it as scaring me to using Victor, more a generic useful tip to check. Setting a stone in that fashion is hardly a VC only capable service, but a huge proportion of settings internationally.

 

[kenny]

Personally I don't see it as scaring me to using Victor, more a generic useful tip to check. Setting a stone in that fashion is hardly a VC only capable service, but a huge proportion of settings internationally.

I tend to agree regarding the "scaring" aspect, but it's up to admin to make the call.
Admin has posted that they don't have time to read every post in every thread and appreciate members' help with alerts to anything that may be an issue.

 

[cflutist]

But by doing it the green way, you cover up the points of the arrows? The glamour shots that I see from WF and BGD show the arrows.

 

[Victor Canera]

Hi Kenny
The information was intended to be just general advice for consumers to use with whomever they want to make an informed decision. It's not something that's exclusive to a single vendor. That was the intent of the post at least. If not, I'm happy to modify the text.

 

[Victor Canera]

Yes, part of the arrow shaft of the diagonal arrows would be covered by prongs when setting the stone in the NSEW orientation. That's the only down-side I can think of. I personally love the symmetric look though of having the arrows in the NSEW positions.

But by doing it the green way, you cover up the points of the arrows? The glamour shots that I see from WF and BGD show the arrows.

 

[kenny]

Victor Canera" data-source="post: 4315512" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Hi Kenny
The information was intended to be just general advice for consumers to use with whomever they want to make an informed decision. It's not something that's exclusive to a single vendor. That was the intent of the post at least. If not, I'm happy to modify the text.

Thanks Victor.
Again, I see the content of your post as reasonable and mechanically sound, but whether even a helpful post/thread started by a vendor violates PS policy is admin's call.

I have an engineering background and also post things when I see mechanical issues with how things are done.
... but I'm a civilian who does not make my living off this industry so I'm under more liberal PS rules.

 

[gm89uk]

Hi Victor,

Thank you for your post. When you mention problem, what problems have you come across due to the none NSEW orientation (diagram on the left)? Higher proportion of lost diamonds or simply looser prongs over time?

Victor Canera" data-source="post: 4315459" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to share a suggestion to the community based on past experience and because I’ve had this debate with clients in the past.

Setting a round diamond off center in a four prong arrangement causes the prongs to sit right on top of two facet junctions, namely between two upper girdle facets. This means that the prongs are not on top of a flat surface which is not as secure as having them on top of a flat surface. This might or not become an issue with the prongs over time. Some unknowns such as the thickness of the prongs (even the type of metal) can effect whether this becomes a problem. Please refer to the image below:


My suggestion is to set a round diamond with the arrows facing the NSEW arrangement. Doing this causes the prongs to sit right on top of a single Bezel facet which is nice and flat and more secure.


All the best,

 

[kenny]

But by doing it the green way, you cover up the points of the arrows? The glamour shots that I see from WF and BGD show the arrows.

Good point.

Unfortunately many, if not most, of us notice and react favorably to what looks good rather than what is more mechanically sound.
Few people think critically like engineers.
Victor makes a very good point.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It could easily be seen an academic discussion.
I very much appreciate Victor's perspective because as a setter, he has firsthand knowledge. Many places- us included- rely on the labor of other people.
It's definitely interesting because cflutist did exactly what I did after reading the post- and started checking how our guys handle it.
Surely if other setters are reading, there might be differences of opinion. Not to say Victor is wrong at all.
It makes sense.
But by my calculations, if the arrow is parallel to the finger ( pointing in the same direction) and the prongs are at 2, 4, 8, and 10:00 they won't be aligned on the facets Victor suggested. I think there's certainly "Super ideal" people who'd want the arrows pointing the same way the finger does.
Interesting discussion for sure.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Good point. Unfortunately many, if not most, of us notice and react favorably to what looks good rather than what is more mechanically sound. Few people think like engineers.

Pfooooey ... that’s what insurance is for!



Kidding of course ... kinda

 

[kenny]

Pfooooey ... that’s what insurance is for!



Kidding of course ... kinda

Please.
Zillions of rings are made that are too thin, and with melee on 3 sides.
Zillions of rings are made with too few prongs or prongs that are too thin.
Zillions of rings are made with prongs too high because buyers think it makes their diamond look bigger.

Diamond safety is NOT top priority to many jewelry buyers.
A more common buyer priority is ... DAINTY!
If one vendor won't make a 1.4mm band with melee on 3 sides, another will.
Vendors are damed if they do, damed if they don't.

Just because someone will make it doesn't mean they should, or that it is reasonably safe ... whatever that even is.

I have a couple missions here at PS, one is (when I see them) pointing out when settings seem, IMO, unsafe.

 

[the_mother_thing]

On a more serious note, this IS of interest to me. How much does diamond orientation matter when it comes to a semi-bezel? I just shipped my diamond off this afternoon to be set in Sholdt’s semi-bezel, and I had toyed with visual mock-ups of what orientation I might want my diamond set, not even realizing that there may be a more ‘sound’ method to deciding that for the sake of security. (Mental Note - I’ll follow up with Sholdt on this!)

Reading Victor’s suggestion, if it’s set more on the facet junctions, is it more likely my diamond would come loose in the semi-bezel (albeit it likely wouldn’t get lost as easily)? Or - with a semi-bezel - is it more likely that the semi bezels would be evenly distributed on the sides of the diamond and it wouldn’t make a difference?

 

[Victor Canera]

Hi Victor,

Thank you for your post. When you mention problem, what problems have you come across due to the none NSEW orientation (diagram on the left)? Higher proportion of lost diamonds or simply looser prongs over time?

I haven’t really come across an issue with this because I’ve done probably only 3-4 projects in the last 6 years with the diamond being set off-center. Every other project has been with the arrows being NSEW. I wasn't able to convince those 3-4 clients

I can imagine though that if the diamond is knocked against a hard surface, the stone could rotate in the basket because when the prongs are on top of the junction of the two upper girdle facets, the prongs sit higher than if they were on top of the bezel facet. Once the stone rotates, you have a gap between the prong(s) and the center stone and then the prongs could catch on clothing and if they’re thin enough can peel off of the diamond.

And I promise Kenny this isn ’t FUD, it’s just an answer to a question as to what could happen

 

[the_mother_thing]

Please.
Zillions of rings are made that are too thin, and with melee on 3 sides.
Zillions of rings are made with too few prongs or prongs that are too thin.
Zillions of rings are made with prongs too high because buyers think it makes their diamond look bigger.

Diamond safety is NOT top priority to zillions of jewelry buyers.
If one vendor won't make a 1.4mm band with melee on 3 sides, another will.
Vendors are damed if they do, damed if they don't.

Just because someone will make it doesn't mean they should, or that it is reasonably safe ... whatever that even is.

I have a couple missions here at PS, one is (when I see them) pointing out when settings seem, IMO, unsafe.

Rest assured, I totally agree. While they’re beautiful (and I mean no negativity toward anyone who has them), I would never have as delicate a setting as I see so many of on here, in IG feeds, other boards, etc. I am wayyyyy to safety/security conscious to risk those two items for the sake of ‘pretty’ or what’s currently in style. That’s why I’m going with a trusty, sturdy, deliciously sexy Sholdt semi-bezel.

 

[yssie]

It is true that many of us make structural compromises for the sake of looks - it's easy to justify prioritising aesthetic when the subject is artwork. Thin shanks with minimal-metal pave, very-brittle 14k RG... I have a 4ct with >36 crown (non-trivial angular difference) in an 8 prong setting with all prongs squarely bisecting the UGF meets... because I like seeing the arrows.

As long as you're aware of the compromises you're making and are willing to put up with their consequences... Problem is when consumers aren't aware of the liabilities their preferences introduce!

 

[Victor Canera]

It could easily be seen an academic discussion.
I very much appreciate Victor's perspective because as a setter, he has firsthand knowledge. Many places- us included- rely on the labor of other people.
It's definitely interesting because cflutist did exactly what I did after reading the post- and started checking how our guys handle it.
Surely if other setters are reading, there might be differences of opinion. Not to say Victor is wrong at all.
It makes sense.
But by my calculations, if the arrow is parallel to the finger ( pointing in the same direction) and the prongs are at 2, 4, 8, and 10:00 they won't be aligned on the facets Victor suggested. I think there's certainly "Super ideal" people who'd want the arrows pointing the same way the finger does.
Interesting discussion for sure.

It could be possible that some vendors don’t have their prongs on the corners at the 45°, 135°, 225°, 315° positions but I think the vast majority do. The exact positioning on the clock would be more like 1:30, 4:30, 7:30 and 10:30. I’m attaching a diagram with two lines that are exactly 45° crossing a diamond. The prongs fall right on top of a bezel facet.

There was one design that I had a week ago that needed the prongs to be slightly off from the corners but that’s the only exception that I’ve come across.

 

[Victor Canera]

On a more serious note, this IS of interest to me. How much does diamond orientation matter when it comes to a semi-bezel? I just shipped my diamond off this afternoon to be set in Sholdt’s semi-bezel, and I had toyed with visual mock-ups of what orientation I might want my diamond set, not even realizing that there may be a more ‘sound’ method to deciding that for the sake of security. (Mental Note - I’ll follow up with Sholdt on this!)

Reading Victor’s suggestion, if it’s set more on the facet junctions, is it more likely my diamond would come loose in the semi-bezel (albeit it likely wouldn’t get lost as easily)? Or - with a semi-bezel - is it more likely that the semi bezels would be evenly distributed on the sides of the diamond and it wouldn’t make a difference?

Hi,
I can't imagine a scenario where this would be an issue at all with a semi-bezel set stone. There aren't prongs involved with this type of setting so it should be okay.

Good luck

 

[Victor Canera]

It is true that many of us make structural compromises for the sake of looks - it's easy to justify prioritising aesthetic when the subject is artwork. Thin shanks with minimal-metal pave, very-brittle 14k RG... I have a 4ct with >36 crown (non-trivial angular difference) in an 8 prong setting with all prongs squarely bisecting the UGF meets... because I like seeing the arrows.

As long as you're aware of the compromises you're making and are willing to put up with their consequences... Problem is when consumers aren't aware of the liabilities their preferences introduce!

Amen to that.

 

[kenny]

It is true that many of us make structural compromises for the sake of looks - it's easy to justify prioritising aesthetic when the subject is artwork.

Not easy for me.
I pay too much for my diamonds to put them in anything but the most-secure settings.

Apparently people vary.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Victor Canera" data-source="post: 4315537" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Hi,
I can't imagine a scenario where this would be an issue at all with a semi-bezel set stone. There aren't prongs involved with this type of setting so it should be okay.

Good luck

Thank you!

(I’ll still follow-up with Sholdt to see how they recommend my diamond be oriented when set because I am curious).

 

[Karl_K]

Victor Canera" data-source="post: 4315513" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Yes, part of the arrow shaft of the diagonal arrows would be covered by prongs when setting the stone in the NSEW orientation. That's the only down-side I can think of. I personally love the symmetric look though of having the arrows in the NSEW positions.

I feel like I'm in a time warp this exact conversation took place 12-13 years ago on a planet errr website far far away... err oh it was pricscope.
That is the reason for setting them that way. There was overwhelming consumer preference for prongs between the arrows at the time.
Tens of Thousands of diamonds later its a non-issue.

 

[Karl_K]

Steep deep diamonds in yellow gold on the other hand are much better mounted with prongs on the arrows, so the prongs don't reflect into the diamond through the leakage between the arrows making it look more yellow.(if your avoiding yellow that is)

 

[kenny]

I feel like I'm in a time warp this exact conversation took place 12-13 years ago on a planet errr website far far away... err oh it was pricscope.
That is the reason for setting them that way. There was overwhelming consumer preference for prongs between the arrows at the time.
Tens of Thousands of diamonds later its a non-issue.

So, people prefer the look of what is arguably a bit mechanically inferior.
A prong on a flat surface is more secure long term than a prong placed the ridge between two flat surfaces.
Then again perhaps the bench pushes the soft metal down so it is making intimate contact with both flat surfaces on both sides of the ridge between them.

Not quite a "non-issue".

I guess it kinda depends on what kind of a person you are ... Image over substance or substance over image.

 

[Karl_K]

Kenny, my point was there is a difference between "Might" be an issue and "Is" an issue.
If it was a big issue we would have heard about it over 12-13 years.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I have a couple missions here at PS, one is (when I see them) pointing out when settings seem, IMO, unsafe.

Are tension settings safe??..