Octahedron with "star" inclusion

[freddyboston]

?

Rare Vintage Tiffany & Co. 18K Yellow Gold Octahedron Diamond With 16 Inch Chain | eBay

The piece exudes elegance and sophistication, perfect for any formal occasion. 18K @ 4grams(gross). There is a discoloration at the clasp & at the bail. There is No cut ( rough diamond). Looks like G/H color, about SI2 in clarity.

www.ebay.com

 

[lovedogs]

?

Rare Vintage Tiffany & Co. 18K Yellow Gold Octahedron Diamond With 16 Inch Chain | eBay

The piece exudes elegance and sophistication, perfect for any formal occasion. 18K @ 4grams(gross). There is a discoloration at the clasp & at the bail. There is No cut ( rough diamond). Looks like G/H color, about SI2 in clarity.

www.ebay.com

This was actually one of David's ideas for how to set it--he sent me the same link haha. I guess I'm super hesitant to drill the stone, which is why i initially said no to this.

 

[lovedogs]

I'm worried the cage will obscure the star, or at the least take the focus off it.

ETA: What about a setting that holds it from the sides, kind of like a tension setting. Or, could the @RMOO one be used without the band across the middle, maybe with a teensy prong or "cup" where the points meet?

Can you draw what you mean? Sorry, my visualization skills are almost comically poor so I can imagine the prong/cup you're describing

 

[RMOO]

I'm worried the cage will obscure the star, or at the least take the focus off it.

This is my concern as well.

 

[RMOO]

You would have to ask DK if this is secure and structurally sound, but what about something like this? It would give a clear view of the center of the stone, but the caps could still allow the stone to spin, and the bar above would keep the arms from spreading.

 

[RMOO]

I'm worried the cage will obscure the star, or at the least take the focus off it.

ETA: What about a setting that holds it from the sides, kind of like a tension setting. Or, could the @RMOO one be used without the band across the middle, maybe with a teensy prong or "cup" where the points meet?

@ShinyPink this is where I was going too. I did a little mock up.

 

[molecule]

This was actually one of David's ideas for how to set it--he sent me the same link haha. I guess I'm super hesitant to drill the stone, which is why i initially said no to this.

I think you would be able to drill just a little bit into each side rather than all the way through the diamond.

 

[lovedogs]

@ShinyPink this is where I was going too. I did a little mock up.

oooo that's great. Thanks for helping me figure out what that would look like!

 

[RMOO]

oooo that's great. Thanks for helping me figure out what that would look like!

Which orientation shows the inclusion the best, and makes it the most visible in person, north/south or east/west?

 

[lovedogs]

Which orientation shows the inclusion the best, and makes it the most visible in person, north/south or east/west?

North/South for sure.

 

[RMOO]

North/South for sure.

Ok, so on my first mock up, will the full bezel get in the way? If so, then maybe semi bezels that wrap just barely around the corners would work, exposing the front and back of the stone. This might need some sort of bar above like the other(E/W) design, to keep the arms from spreading.

 

[Starstruck8]

Some thoughts:

A 'cage' seems feasible. The illustrated one looks a bit unrefined. Maybe some clever design could yield a cage that works to enhance the stone. A possible issue: The stone is not perfectly octahedral. I can't make out its exact shape from the video, but at a minimum, some edges are sharp, some rounded. Any cage would have to accommodate this.

The best view of the star is looking square-on to a face. IMO, the next best view is square-on to an edge, which shows two (apparent) stars. A spinning 'half-cage' could show both views without any obstruction by metal. Here is a sketch:


The metal is shown in gold for clarity, but you can use any metal you like. You can also remove the lower half of the frame, if you are not obsessed by symmetry. (This would be like the original 'calipers' concept.) Note that the half-cage is a weird 3D shape and will look odd in some orientations.

If you want to spin the stone without a cage, you will have to think about how it is held. I think this would require 'caps with axles' and some sort of bearings in the frame to keep them in place and aligned. This can be done:
https://www.jewelry-tutorials.com/make-spinning-ring.html
https://www.atelier-berger.de/
But you may have to find the right jeweller...

 

[lovedogs]

Other ideas

 

[lovedogs]

Some thoughts:

A 'cage' seems feasible. The illustrated one looks a bit unrefined. Maybe some clever design could yield a cage that works to enhance the stone. A possible issue: The stone is not perfectly octahedral. I can't make out its exact shape from the video, but at a minimum, some edges are sharp, some rounded. Any cage would have to accommodate this.

The best view of the star is looking square-on to a face. IMO, the next best view is square-on to an edge, which shows two (apparent) stars. A spinning 'half-cage' could show both views without any obstruction by metal. Here is a sketch:


The metal is shown in gold for clarity, but you can use any metal you like. You can also remove the lower half of the frame, if you are not obsessed by symmetry. (This would be like the original 'calipers' concept.) Note that the half-cage is a weird 3D shape and will look odd in some orientations.

If you want to spin the stone without a cage, you will have to think about how it is held. I think this would require 'caps with axles' and some sort of bearings in the frame to keep them in place and aligned. This can be done:
https://www.jewelry-tutorials.com/make-spinning-ring.html
https://www.atelier-berger.de/
But you may have to find the right jeweller...

This is where I'm getting kind of stuck. Having the star showing is my #1 priority above anything else. So I want to be totally sure that happens