Jeweler is saying the setting I want is a no-go

[misscollinsla]

My jeweler is custom-designing the setting for my 1.61 carat cushion cut. I sent him a picture of this floating basket setting: http://pinterest.com/pin/72198400249078196/

However, he is telling me that he would advise against setting the stone in this style. Does anyone know why? He is saying it is dangerous. That the band is 1.5mm in width and we would need to make the band a bit larger to support this style. Is that accurate? Could there be another reason he wants to put more metal underneath the stone?

Thanks all!

 

[maccers]

1.5mm is very thin for a band with pave, it makes it more fragile and delicate. So, your vendor could be truthful. Either that or he's not confident that he can do that fine of work. But it's probably the former. Many psers won't go thinner than 1.8 mm for pave and many others would recommend going at least 2.0 mm wide.

 

[sonnyjane]

1.5mm is very thin for a band with pave, it makes it more fragile and delicate. So, your vendor could be truthful. Either that or he's not confident that he can do that fine of work. But it's probably the former. Many psers won't go thinner than 1.8 mm for pave and many others would recommend going at least 2.0 mm wide.

Ditto this.

 

[misscollinsla]

thanks very much for this advice. he did advise going a bit larger with the band - by 1 or 2 points. he said the difference in price would be minimal, like $100-$150. just wasn't sure if he was trying to get us to spend more money.

 

[misscollinsla]

thanks very much for this advice. he did advise going a bit larger with the band - by 1 or 2 points. he said the difference in price would be minimal, like $100-$150. just wasn't sure if he was trying to get us to spend more money.

 

[maccers]

thanks very much for this advice. he did advise going a bit larger with the band - by 1 or 2 points. he said the difference in price would be minimal, like $100-$150. just wasn't sure if he was trying to get us to spend more money.

No, he's not trying to gouge you for that small amount. In order to do the pave, it means removing metal to insert the stones. Less metal, weaker shank. If he's saying to go wider, that is definitely the safer option. If you're hard on your rings, you may want to think about asking for 2 mm or 2.2 mm.

 

[misscollinsla]

Here are the CADs he just sent me. I guess I just don't understand how the metal below the stone has any impact on it's structural ability to hold the diamond. It seems more about supporting the band? I'm a novice - sorry...

 

[maccers]

The supporting band - the shank- the part that you insert your finger into is what takes the bulk of forces you experience throughout the day. Clapping your hands, opening doors, putting your hand down on a table etc...force is constantly being exerted onto the metal. The thicker the metal, the more blows it can take without losing its shape and pave. Pave stones can and do fall out occasionally.

 

[Lula]

I compared your CADs to the ring in the link you posted. What I see is a jeweler that can't -- or won't -- execute the design you want. It's not just a matter of how wide the shank should be. The CAD is a completely different design. Find another jeweler.

 

[Karl_K]

I compared your CADs to the ring in the link you posted. What I see is a jeweler that can't -- or won't -- execute the design you want. It's not just a matter of how wide the shank should be. The CAD is a completely different design. Find another jeweler.

There are some major differences yes, but the jewelers design is at least 2x stronger, maybe 3x.

 

[maccers]

I compared your CADs to the ring in the link you posted. What I see is a jeweler that can't -- or won't -- execute the design you want. It's not just a matter of how wide the shank should be. The CAD is a completely different design. Find another jeweler.

Ann I think I understand what the op is talking about now. Misscollins are you talking about the under gallery part? The U shaped part?

 

[misscollinsla]

maccers, yes - exactly - the U shape underneath the stone -

 

[Karl_K]

maccers, yes - exactly - the U shape underneath the stone -

It makes the ring in that area 2-3 times stronger.
Who ever did the cads knows what they are doing.

 

[vishke8]

maccers, yes - exactly - the U shape underneath the stone -

It makes the ring in that area 2-3 times stronger.
Who ever did the cads knows what they are doing.

Ditto, I agree too

 

[distracts]

Thirded. I think in terms of appearance on the hand, the U will be minimally noticeable, but it provides significant resistance to torque so you are less likely to, for instance, discover that you have somehow twisted or snapped off the entire top of your ring without noticing. How likely that would be depends on a lot of factors, but with all that pave I personally would not risk that floating basket setting, as pretty as it is. Not for a diamond, anyhow. I'd do it happily for a cheaper stone.

 

[Lula]

I agree that the ring design depicted in the CADS will be stronger. But aesthetically speaking, it is not the same design as what the OP asked for. I thought that was what the OP was asking about -- the aesthetics.

There are many companies who make that ring without the U-shaped piece; it's a fairly common design.

 

[yssie]

I have to say good for this jeweller for refusing to make a piece that he feels isn't structurally unsound, rather than just doing what the customer asks for to make the sale!

 

[misscollinsla]

Thank you for all of the helpful opinions here. I'm getting the ring insured - shouldn't that be enough of a safety net for having the ring of my dreams?

Another question is - the ring in the CADs is very round (is this called "dome"?) and many parts of the ring I like are flat. Is there a term for this? Also - does anyone think it looks like a lot of metal surrounding the center diamond? It almost seems to be concealing it. Not sure if that will change when the pave is put in place...

 

[sonnyjane]

Thank you for all of the helpful opinions here. I'm getting the ring insured - shouldn't that be enough of a safety net for having the ring of my dreams?

Do you plan on wearing the ring all the time? My personal opinion is that I'd rather have a structurally sound ring than have a "liability" ring that was insured. The reason is that sure, the first time something happens, your insurance can work with you on it. But then maybe your premiums go up...and then if it happens again, questions get asked, and then maybe they don't want to insure your expensive ring that keeps breaking.. That's the worst-case scenario but those types of rings are already very fragile and prone to losing at least stones from the shank. If it were MY ring, I'd want something that I could wear without fear. But that's just MY opinion. Oh, and obviously you insure a ring no matter what, not just if it's a "risky" piece, but I think that goes without saying for most folks reading this.

 

[Lula]

Thank you for all of the helpful opinions here. I'm getting the ring insured - shouldn't that be enough of a safety net for having the ring of my dreams?

Another question is - the ring in the CADs is very round (is this called "dome"?) and many parts of the ring I like are flat. Is there a term for this? Also - does anyone think it looks like a lot of metal surrounding the center diamond? It almost seems to be concealing it. Not sure if that will change when the pave is put in place...

Yes, the ring itself is very round -- it is a domed band. The band on your inspiration ring is flatter, a half-dome or almost a pipe cut band. This again is aesthetically very different than what you showed him. He is making the ring he wants to make, not the ring in the photo. If you want a delicate band with very little metal, that is your right as a paying customer. You seem to understand the risks that a delicate design entails. However, your jeweler is making a sturdy design with more metal. Several members of this board have very delicate rings (search for char my-poo's ring). You might want to take a look at her photos to see if that's closer to the look you prefer. Not every jeweler can or will execute a ring that is so delicate.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I have to say good for this jeweller for refusing to make a piece that he feels isn't structurally unsound, rather than just doing what the customer asks for to make the sale!

Absolutely! Because if it is made structurally unsound, then there will be a thread on how poorly the ring was made!

You need to understand that CADS look a lot bulkier than the actual ring will. I remember well when people wanted those ultra thin Vera Wang settings and I'll bet no one is still wearing them because they wouldn't hold up to daily wear!

 

[CharmyPoo]

Stronger or not stronger ... what's the point of getting a ring if it is not the design you want? I would not be happy looking at it and feeling that I have been strong armed into agreement. You need to think about if this new design is acceptable to you and what you would tweak to make it acceptable.

I am not a fan of the original design. The halo is set really high and I won't be surprised if it is structurally unsound - just looking at the ring looks like the top can fall off.

 

[VRBeauty]

I have to say good for this jeweller for refusing to make a piece that he feels isn't structurally unsound, rather than just doing what the customer asks for to make the sale!

Ditto!

If I recall correctly, one PSer had a ring similar to your inspiration ring - but without the pave - and recently had a problem with the head torquing. The shank wasn't super-skinny, either. I don't recall who it was, but maybe somebody else will.

 

[kenny]

He is saying it is dangerous. That the band is 1.5mm in width and we would need to make the band a bit larger to support this style.

The current trend of extremely thin rings has been discussed many times here on Pricescope.
I feel sorry for sellers.
They have to be competitive even when they know they are selling rings that can't hold up to the lifetime of daily wear and tear expected of an engagement ring.
Quality or materials, processes and workmanship can only go so far.
At some thinness physics takes over.

If jewelers refuse customers' demands they'll lose business to other jewelers who just say what customers want to hear.
If they make the thin rings then customers get mad when they bend or melee pop out.
Damed if you do, damed if you don't.

Here's one of the longer threads on this topic.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/are-rings-too-thin-these-days.155780/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/are-rings-too-thin-these-days.155780/[/URL]