Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Getting a Van Craeynest Band -- Help Please?

cookies

cookies

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
706
The "Show Me Some Van Craeynest!" thread got me to seriously think about getting a VC band. :Up_to_something: I want to alternate wearing the new VC band and my current band (plain 3mm WED-G by James Meyer). I wear my current JM band all day long, doing all sorts of office and house work. It's so comfortable that I barely notice it's on my finger till I get ready for bed. I hope the VC band will be similar -- comfortable, low maintenance, and pretty, and can stand on its own. I don't plan to pair or stack it with any other rings.

Anyway, after looking at VC's catalog dozens of times (I am not exaggerating), "I think" I've narrowed down to these four bands: 483, 484, 107, and 927, although I might change my mind again.. I will probably use rose gold or white gold, but platinum is not out of question.

Among these four, I think 107 probably can stand up to active daily wear the best, followed by 484, then 483, and 927 the last. I want to ask those who own and wear VC band(s), how does yours hold up? How do you take care of it? Does dirt get caught easily in the "grooves" on the top? From what I read, die-struck rings are very durable, much more so than cast. But I am still a bit concerned about the areas (e.g. in 483 and 927) where there is carving and/or chasing. These areas just look so delicate. Can it stand up to active daily wear? Do you take yours off when doing dishes, laundry, vacuuming, grocery shopping, etc?

Here are pictures of the four bands I am currently considering, and a handshot of the 3mm JM band (please excuse my ugly hand and nails). My ring size is 8, much larger than the PS average. Do you think 927 will look a bit too delicate on my chubby finger? Which one do you think might look the best on me? If you know of another VC band that will look great on big and fat hands, please do let me know! I will really appreciate that.


vc_bands.jpg

imag0518.jpg
 
I really like the heft of the 107. My only question is - since you're craving Van Craeynest and Van Craeynest is all about the ornate carving, will the 107 scratch that Van Crayenest itch?

Have you considered the 488?

p.s. - please quit denigrating that hard-working hand! :wink2:
 
My first thought was that the 107 just isn't all that special to wear on it's own. I really think all of the other bands are rather delicate and best worn with another ring (or more, as in stacking bands) especially with larger finger sizes. I think I'd love 484 without the darkening, and I certainly love 927. One of the rings like 483 can be a good stand-alone ring, although you might want to get one with a little more on the top.

I consider all bands with engraving, chasing, or small stones have to be taken care of and taken off when doing any work with the hands. You don't want to damage or have the pattern become worn down. Only a plain band can be worn all the time, in my opinion.
 
VRBeauty, you are right, I should stop criticizing the appearance of my hands. I do really appreciate all the hard work they do for me.

Yeah, VC does excellent carving and piercing work, and that's what sets them apart from other jewelers. It's kind of like when one goes to LM, he/she should get claw prongs. ;)) I think I don't want it to be super ornate. 483 and 927 have about the right amount of ornateness for me. 107 is indeed an odd ball among the VC bands as it has no carving. I am not sure if it will make me satisfied forever.

I just looked at 488 again. It tapers from the top to the bottom, according to the clay-pot.com. If possible, I think I'd like to get something that has a uniform shank width.

van_craeynest_488_0.jpg

DS2006, I didn't know die-struck rings should use the same care as non-die struck rings.. I always thought they would be much tougher. I was wrong.

Do you know if VC makes a bigger version of 483? I see what you mean about the band width. The band needs to have a wide top to stand on its own. Otherwise I need to stack it with a ring or a couple (or more?) other bands. If I go the stack route, the bands/ring should be in the same metal or they will wear down each other fast, right? I do really like how they stack them in the picture below, although it's a mix of metals. Hmm.. maybe I should consider getting a set... :loopy:

vc_stacking_bands.jpg
 
I'm a big fan of 927, but I'd wear it stacked with your current plain band.
 
Some pictures of the 488 seem to show it without a taper - maybe it's an option? Also, what about the 977 as a stand-alone ring?

What can I say - I love this line, and would probably enjoy owning just about any of these rings!
 
You could definitely mix yellow and white gold and maybe rose gold, although I have heard some people say it scratches more easily. But I am not sure about the details of that (rose gold scratching), such as alloys.
 
488 might have some options. I will check with Larry (or Cross Ｊewelers) on that, and perhaps also on stacking and mixing metals. I haven't decided if I want to buy directly from Larry or through Cross Jeweles. I heard they are both wonderful, but Cross Jewelers is in the same time zone as me, so communication might be a bit easier with them.

I tried looking up 977, and found it in the gents' section. :lol: I actually have never looked in that section before, but now I discover that I really like the gents' version of 484! It has a plain strip of metal in the middle, and scrolls on both sides half way down the shank. What I am not sure is, will it look too manly, or not delicate enough, on a petite woman, who happens to have size 8 ring finger?

van_craeynest_584-pg_400.jpg

I just spent my entire day on revisiting every VC ring thread. DH thinks I am going insane but I love doing research. I must have changed my mind at least 100 times now. :eek: But I think I might have found the one.. or two (one flower band, and one fishtail ring).. or maybe three (if you count in the gents' version of 484 I mentioned above).. :appl:

I really like a flower band that Love In Bloom took pictures of during her visit to VC. It's the top one in her handshot, and the right one in the pendant picture. It might be a variation of 558 as they look very similar, but the one in LIB's pictures looks chunkier or wider. It looks wider than the 3mm wedding set that LIB is wearing, so maybe it's 4mm wide? It's probably substantial enough to wear on its own, right? What do you think?

lib_vc_visit2.jpg

I also fall in love with seahorsegurl's e-ring, 484 (the large version) with #4 fishfail prong head. However, I don't think I should get this ring at the same time as the band. So maybe a few years down the road, put a colored stone in it, and wear it as a right hand ring. :Up_to_something:

vc_484_lg_fishtail.jpg
 
That band with the blue sapphires is gorgeous too! I love just about everything VC makes...such a tough decision!
 
mrssalvo|1345375725|3253864 said:
That band with the blue sapphires is gorgeous too! I love just about everything VC makes...such a tough decision!
Click to expand...

It's an amazing collection, isn't it? The blue sapphire band is a piece of art. If I go with it, I will probably get the wide variation as in LIB's handshot (hope VC can still do it! :o ), in rose gold, with non-princess cut diamonds or colored stones. Ｉ still adore the simplicity and practicality of 107 though. Ｏh, and how can I forget the lovely 927! I am so torn between all the choices!
 
I'm not certain that Van Craeynest rings are available, at least not by the cold forging method. VC was recently bought by a company from the Redlands, and I think the new rings will be made by the casting method, and will no longer be die struck. Using dies to cast will render the metal more porous and not as strong. The chasing detail and piercing that VC is know for cannot be achieved to nearly the same degree with the casting method--the metal simply won't be strong enough. I suspect you will be able to get a cast ring from them, but it's not going to be anything like the Van Craeynest of old. You should call them, but chances are you'll probably have to get a cast ring, not the cold forged (die struck). The new VC is probably casting them because it's much less expensive, and more money can be made. The original VC family I suspect never got involved with excessive marketing of their work--they were more interested in being master craftsmen, not in just making money.
 
AND|1345594760|3255099 said:
I'm not certain that Van Craeynest rings are available, at least not by the cold forging method. VC was recently bought by a company from the Redlands, and I think the new rings will be made by the casting method, and will no longer be die struck. Using dies to cast will render the metal more porous and not as strong. The chasing detail and piercing that VC is know for cannot be achieved to nearly the same degree with the casting method--the metal simply won't be strong enough. I suspect you will be able to get a cast ring from them, but it's not going to be anything like the Van Craeynest of old. You should call them, but chances are you'll probably have to get a cast ring, not the cold forged (die struck). The new VC is probably casting them because it's much less expensive, and more money can be made. The original VC family I suspect never got involved with excessive marketing of their work--they were more interested in being master craftsmen, not in just making money.
Click to expand...

I've been following the Show Me Some Van Craeynest thread (link below). It sounds like the company who purchased VC has not totally abandoned the die striking or cold forging method, but they have been testing the casting method. Before they announce the success of/ transition to casting, I am not sure what they will do to new orders they get. You are right, I will have to ask them before buying my new band. If I cannot get a 100% die-struck band from them, I will look into other companies who can do it, like Jabel.

Do you know how to tell if a piece is die-struck (vs. cast), without slicing it open, or comparing its weight to an identical but cast piece?

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-some-van-craeynest.79472/page-32']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-some-van-craeynest.79472/page-32[/URL]
 
I remember reading that VC might not be keeping with the same die-struck method. It makes me sad though, because it really is becoming a lost art. Their settings are so expensive though I can understand why going to cast would be better from a financial perspective. I could never justify the cost of one of their e-ring settings though, personally, but I do appreciate the amazing quality that they are (or were.)
 
Cookie|1345633885|3255221 said:
AND|1345594760|3255099 said:
I'm not certain that Van Craeynest rings are available, at least not by the cold forging method. VC was recently bought by a company from the Redlands, and I think the new rings will be made by the casting method, and will no longer be die struck. Using dies to cast will render the metal more porous and not as strong. The chasing detail and piercing that VC is know for cannot be achieved to nearly the same degree with the casting method--the metal simply won't be strong enough. I suspect you will be able to get a cast ring from them, but it's not going to be anything like the Van Craeynest of old. You should call them, but chances are you'll probably have to get a cast ring, not the cold forged (die struck). The new VC is probably casting them because it's much less expensive, and more money can be made. The original VC family I suspect never got involved with excessive marketing of their work--they were more interested in being master craftsmen, not in just making money.
Click to expand...

I've been following the Show Me Some Van Craeynest thread (link below). It sounds like the company who purchased VC has not totally abandoned the die striking or cold forging method, but they have been testing the casting method. Before they announce the success of/ transition to casting, I am not sure what they will do to new orders they get. You are right, I will have to ask them before buying my new band. If I cannot get a 100% die-struck band from them, I will look into other companies who can do it, like Jabel.

Do you know how to tell if a piece is die-struck (vs. cast), without slicing it open, or comparing its weight to an identical but cast piece?

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-some-van-craeynest.79472/page-32']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-some-van-craeynest.79472/page-32[/URL]
Click to expand...

Dear Van Craeynest Fans,

1-We are continuing to fulfill orders of die struck rings.
2-A die struck ring is 2% heavier than the same ring which is cast. A CAST platinum ring is 10x STRONGER than a die struck gold ring!
3-The piercing, chasing and carving are the same on both manufacturing styles.
4-As the owner of VC I am more interested in the art surviving... not in making money. Due to the costs of manufacturing with precious metals being upwards of $1600/ou die striking is not a feasible long term manufacturing technique.

Paul Emerson II
CEO
Van Craeynest
 
Dear Van Craeynest Fans,

Here is your homework

1-Why is platinum heavier than gold?
2-Why is platinum more durable than gold?
3-What is the strength/durability difference between die struck platinum and cast platinum?
4-Does Soldering a head or sizing a ring alter the hardness of a cold forged ring?

Answers forthcoming tomorrow morning.

Very truly yours,

Paul Emerson II
CEO
Van Craeynest
[email protected]
 
Great questions, Paul! I am a platinum fan, so I think I know the answers to 1 and 2. I will be interested in hearing the answers to 3 and 4!
 
I'd like to know the answers to 3 and 4 too. I am a gold fan btw.
 
A better question is how much stronger is a work hardened platinum (cold worked/die struck) vs. a cast platinum. Yes, the weight is slightly more for a die struck piece compared to a cast piece as forging compresses and casting expands the metal (someone said about 2%--which is a small change in volume), but a die struck piece is much, much stronger as a result of the increase in density of dislocations of the metal (much, much greater than 2%). When the metal is work hardened, it becomes more resistant to deformation (ie. becomes harder, and also less ductile (more brittle). Some metals are tempered to decrease the brittleness while maintaining the dislocation density. Try piercing thin cast metal of similar thickness as a die struck piece of platinum--you will be disappointed. Casting is a fine process for doing some types of designs, but it has limitations. For less ornate designs, casting is fine, but where great detail is required, die striking does a better job. Compare a die struck and a cast ring of the same intricate design and decide what you like better. Cast things don't wear as well over time either (they aren't as hard). Strength, of course, also depends on whether or not something is alloyed, and what alloy. That alone can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of a host of properties of materials.

The surface quality of forged parts appears cleaner (more precise--a forged flat or round piece is exactly that, whereas a cast piece will not be as flat or as round) than cast parts because they don't have surface imperfections inherent in the casting process. Also, most cast things are based on a wax replica (how much detail can you achieve by using wax? --not very much). Then there is die casting (I think think this is what the new VC might be planning??).

Also, die striking with tons of pressure (a type of forging that VC does) is different than hand forging (see Victor Canera jewelry--assembling many pieces of forged parts (rolled, pulled wires etc.) together, followed by soldering of joints. Forged jewelry can also be made thinner than cast jewelry because it's stronger (think of magnesium alloy wheels as an analogy--they are lighter and can be made thinner than their thicker and weaker counterparts.

Most jewelry today is cast. There is very little cold forged jewelry being made because it's expensive, difficult to learn to master the technology, and the equipment is expensive to buy and maintain.

That said, there is very nice cast jewelry out there, I just don't think cast jewelry of the same designs as VC will be as good as forged jewelry.
 
VanCraeynest|1345714809|3255804 said:
Dear Van Craeynest Fans,

Here is your homework

1-Why is platinum heavier than gold?
2-Why is platinum more durable than gold?
3-What is the strength/durability difference between die struck platinum and cast platinum?
4-Does Soldering a head or sizing a ring alter the hardness of a cold forged ring?

Answers forthcoming tomorrow morning.

Very truly yours,

Paul Emerson II
CEO
Van Craeynest
[email protected]
Click to expand...

t's fun knowing a little but knowing a lot about a metals characteristics really gets me excited!

1-Platinum is more like muscle than fat. It is musch more dense. This density is measured in grams/centimeter cubed. Platinum is 60% heavier than gold by volume! It is also more pure, 90-95% pure where as 18K gold is 75% pure.
2-Platinum is more durable because it is harder, while hardness is normally expressed using the Mohs scale, Diamond being 10. There are other factors such as the Vickers number for precious metal that come into play in a big way. That require show and tell.
The Mohs for gold is 2.5 - 3.0 depending on what alloy is used the Mohs for Platinum also varies by purity from 4.0 - 5.0 which is over 10X harder than gold. This helps explain why it is more durable. But thats not all... platinum does not lose molecules at the rate gold does. It may dull as it gains its patina. But when you weigh a ring that weighed 5.3gms 10 years later it will weigh the same amount. A gold ring would not it would have lost up to 0.5-0.6gms in that time with light wear and sometimes double that amount.
3-A die struck ring certainly is harder we can demonstrate 3-4% in our lab. What does that mean? The vickers number from 549MPa to roughly 570MPa (Gold is only 216MPa). What we have doing for the past year is destructive testing. In one test we have been tumbling a cast and die struck 488 in a magnetic tumbler and taking pictures every 24 hours. You may know that we chase these rings after die striking or casting. Chasing appears to work harden the platinum and we are not seeing any appreciable difference in wear.
4-Most shops use white gold solder to size platinum and to solder in heads; at VC do not. Sizing or putting in a head
heats up the die struck platinum causing expansion of the metal, this changes the graining. This softens the metal slightly.

What is art? Is it the canvas? The oil paint or the brush? At Van Craeynest art is the Masters touch!

Very truly yours,

Paul Emerson II
CEO
Van Craeynest
[email protected]
 
Very interesting, Paul. And a very, very compelling argument for using platinum for fine jewelry that will be worn often. I was already convinced because I knew platinum was much more dense and did not wear away like gold, but this was very useful additional information!
 
The Van Craeynest pieces are a joy to behold in yellow gold. Actually the two-tone - yellow gold with a touch of platinum or white gold accents for relief, serves to enhance both metals. I don't want a work horse, I want a show pony!
 
Polished|1345868482|3256837 said:
The Van Craeynest pieces are a joy to behold in yellow gold. Actually the two-tone - yellow gold with a touch of platinum or white gold accents for relief, serves to enhance both metals. I don't want a work horse, I want a show pony!
Click to expand...

Missed this...but it is true that their jewelry is beautiful in all metals!
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top