Is hammer setting in a platinum frame possible?

[fatafelice]

HI! I''m hoping for some good advice from all you setting experts!

I love the ring below (mommy 2nk''s new E-ring), but I have always thought that I wanted something a little more modern looking. Plus, I''m tough on jewelry and I worry about damaging the pave''. I also have traditionally really liked hammer or gypsy settings for small stones (ex: tiffany etoile-style bands). I was wondering if it would be possible to make a ring like this but substitute hammer-set stones for the bead-set ones?

Would it be safer? Would the stones sparkle less? Would the stones be difficult to clean? Would it be cost-prohibitive because of the labor? I was thinking about just having it on the top of the frame around the stone and possibly on the shank. What do you think?

Thanks for your input!

 

[fatafelice]

Anyone?

(Bump)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

this is the wrong section for your question.

But what you are describing is channel set I think - and yes it is easy.

 

[valeria101]

I don't think I understand the question very well...

Do you want the frame and band to look like the "Etoile" - with small diamonds scaterred here and there ? Or the same look but something more durable ?

The first should be feasible, I guess, if there's enough metal to go around (= a havy ring). The second version doesn't make much sense - there is no way to achieve the "pave" look with gipsy set stones (there has to be allot more metal between the stones), and I can't see why that would be more wearable.

Something relatively close exists - but that works for just one row of stones, not quite "pave" and needs lots of metal (including on the sides of the diamond row) for support.

Anyway, pave is not that fragile; no reason not to get what you like

(the example comes from here)

 

[fatafelice]

Okay, so I realized after I posted that I probably should have put this in Jewelry, but there were other setting related questions hanging around so I decided to leave it.

Should I try over there instead?

I'm pretty sure I don't want channel set, but let me see if I can describe this better...

I want a platinum frame or "halo" around the center stone. Rather than have pave set stones, I would like a single row of stones to be gypsy set into the top of the frame. I'm okay with having a little space between the stones, but do you think that would otherwise require too much metal and look clunky? This is the only thing that I have been able to find that is remotely close, but it is way too chunky looking. Is that a necessity in order to have enough metal to set the stones that way? The very lack of any, more delicate, examples was what made me wonder if it was impossible.

(Editied to add some clarification)

 

[fatafelice]

Valeria -- Thanks for posting that ring and link! I really like the way the stones are set since they have less metal in between them. Do you think it would be possible to make a halo like that (much smaller stones, of course!

) and have it still look close to the thickness of this ring from the side? I wouldn''t want the diamonds around the sides of the frame...

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/9/2005 5:47:6 PM
Author: fatafelice
Do you think it would be possible to make a halo like that (much smaller stones, of course!) and have it still look close to the thickness of this ring from the side? I wouldn''t want the diamonds around the sides of the frame...

Not sure. This is one Q for a jeweler...

One example might help. Look what Platinumsmith did

LINK

Those bands look pretty thin to me and there are no "prongs" to snag things.