Pilot holes / azures behind pavé?

[Lykame]

I'm sorry, I know this has been a decently touched upon topic in Pricescope, and I've read a number of threads about it, but find myself no closer to clarity on the issue for myself.

I'm getting a ring and it has a 2mm band with pavé on it. I have umm'd and ahh'd a bit about that, because 2mm goes better with my design than 2.2mm, but I recognise 2mm is quite thin. The ring is being made with 950 platinum, and the pavé is 1.8mm stones (0.025 points each) going about 2/3rd of the way around the shank.

Basically, my last ring was about 2.8mm with pavé, and those diamonds had pilot holes (I think they're called azures in America). You know, the holes underneath the stones so you can clean the pavilions. I liked them a lot. I recognise that dirt can get into them, but equally I love how it means the pavilions can be cleaned, and if dirt gets under the pavé it can be more easily cleaned out - so if you spill something on the ring it can be easily cleaned out. I can't understand how you get dirt out from under pavé on closed shanks??? Additionally, I've seen a lot of Trade on here suggest it's a good idea and I'm inclined to agree - it would be my preference.

I've been told by my vendor that putting pilot holes into my shank is absolutely fine but that their personal preference would be to not, and I've also been reassured there are no concerns about structural integrity for it if I did. I've been told it's completely down to my personal preference. I'm happy to believe them as they're a well trusted vendor who have made many many rings, but I do still have a healthy caution from reading lots here. I personally would much prefer pilot holes, but I would consider declining them if there was a strong consensus here to do so.

What do you guys think? Thanks for any help you can be in helping me figure out my answer.

 

[chappy]

Why don't you ask your vendor what reasons they have to prefer no pilot hole? And then share the answers here, I've also been very curious!

My band is 2mm pave with no holes, and it's old but doesn't seem dirty. Doesn't appear to be a problem for me.

 

[Lykame]

Why don't you ask your vendor what reasons they have to prefer no pilot hole? And then share the answers here, I've also been very curious!

My band is 2mm pave with no holes, and it's old but doesn't seem dirty. Doesn't appear to be a problem for me.

Thank you for your response.

She said it was her personal preference to do with how the band seemed more luxurious when solid, rather than anything to do with anything else. I know that having holes can conversely attract dirt too - that was another of her concerns. For me the concern is the opposite - of getting dirt under the pavé stones' pavilion and not being able to get the dirt back out again. Whereas at least with holes there is access to the pavilions. So I am pretty sure I want the pilot holes.

Throughout, my main thing has been about structural integrity, so currently having a wobble about the 2mm shank with pilot holes. I prefer the way the 2mm shank looks with my central stone and I've been assured 2mm is perfectly secure... but Pricescope is worrying me. Wondering who I can politely call here to ask? Ummm... @rockysalamander @sledge ?? I have literally just approved the 2mm, the stones are available for it and everything... and it would be my preference - but a couple of people I value the opinions of other than my vendor are expressing concern about the 2mm... not sure what to do... I don't want to forever regret going too wide and wishing I had gone with the 2mm... but I don't want the shank to be flimsy either. In context I was so annoyed with my previous ring, the shank was too wide for the central diamond and I promised myself I would not make the same error again - but that shank was 2.8mm, no concern about structure there.

 

[sledge]

I'm about to leave my office, and will dive into this deeper when I have more data in front of me.

The short version -- I believe the pave on my fiancee's ring is 1.7 or 1.8mm. I don't recall the diamond sizes. I think those are all the same (except where the pave wraps around the center stone and then they gradually get smaller), but the stones in the channel set varied as the stones wrapped up closer to the center stone.

The pave portion of the band has no access holes for cleaning. Amy @ DK had advised against them (as I did ask when designing it) and said that using a baby's tooth brush, dawn & warm water would get the dirt & grime just perfectly.

The wider part of the band that contains the channel set diamonds do have cleaning holes (actually squares) but I can't recall that thickness. Actually it varies. I think at the bottom after it all merges together it's around 2.3mm. But at one point where it flares out and breaks into the pave band and channel band it's quite a bit wider. Then it fluctuates on the ride up to the center stone.

Pictures are worth a thousand words, so....

Look what just showed up in my inbox....

 

[Lykame]

I'm about to leave my office, and will dive into this deeper when I have more data in front of me.

The short version -- I believe the pave on my fiancee's ring is 1.7 or 1.8mm. I don't recall the diamond sizes. I think those are all the same (except where the pave wraps around the center stone and then they gradually get smaller), but the stones in the channel set varied as the stones wrapped up closer to the center stone.

The pave portion of the band has no access holes for cleaning. Amy @ DK had advised against them (as I did ask when designing it) and said that using a baby's tooth brush, dawn & warm water would get the dirt & grime just perfectly.

The wider part of the band that contains the channel set diamonds do have cleaning holes (actually squares) but I can't recall that thickness. Actually it varies. I think at the bottom after it all merges together it's around 2.3mm. But at one point where it flares out and breaks into the pave band and channel band it's quite a bit wider. Then it fluctuates on the ride up to the center stone.

Pictures are worth a thousand words, so....

Thanks @sledge, and look forward to if you have further insight, although I just saw you have a long journey ahead of you home - have a safe journey.

Has your fiancée had any issue with the pavé that does not have pilot holes, keeping it clean??? I can imagine dirt getting under them easily - but not so easily getting out. I think I have to have pilot holes for my own sanity - but wouldn't want the ring to fall apart because of them. But I've seen many people here have 2mm shanks and be fine - so I worry that I'm just over-worrying about something I don't actually need to be worried about at all.

 

[Lykame]

@diamondseeker2006, I have seen you offer up some great opinions on shanks and pavé and how thin or not they should be - any words of wisdom? Thank you kindly.

 

[LLJsmom]

I had a Jocelyn by Victor Canera and the band part was just a hair shy of 2mm. I had bright cut pave set single cuts. No holes for cleaning. I keep it clean with warm water and dish soap. Every now and then I throw it in the ultrasonic. No issues with security or it being difficult to clean. I just trusted Victor with him making it the way he sees fit. So whatever way he has chosen I will assume is the best way it can be made. That’s just the way I think. I am sure others will have other opinions.

 

[foxinsox]

I’ve got an 18k WG bead-set single cut band with lovely big azures behind each single-cut. It’s 2mm on top tapering down to 1.6mm on the palm-side. It’s been kinda bombproof so far with no deformation or any issues but the diamonds only go acros the top of the finger and not down the side so may not be a good example.
I love how the azures look too (arty shot through a loupe )

 

[rockysalamander]

Holes and azures (square windows) are structurally quite different. Azures are actually made differently and they are stronger than holes. The azures are cast as such and then finished. They offer much more structurally stability. The holes are made by taking a solid band and drilling if full of holes. That can weaken the structure. So, the structural piece is both the form of the cleaning access and how thick, off the finger, the ring is. The more metal you have in thickness, you can cheat a bit in width (but not much). You might ask the maker if they could use azures, like @foxinsox, to get the cleaning and draining access. If they could drill a hole or make a single channel at the end of each diamond run, at least liquid could run out. But, that will likely make the ring thicker (off the finger). So, its a balance since you have a very specific look you want.

If you go with a solid back, you may have cases where you might got stuff stuck under the stones. A poster a while back had a solid piece of something that had to be pulled out. In extreme cases, the stone has to be unset. Most of the time, you'll have to just scrub a lot and use alcohol to get the water off the back of the stone.

I know myself and I know that I need cleaning access on rings. I won't be careful when I wear them, I won't hesitate to plunge my hands in the dirt, or other stuff. I'll mix dough, clean stuff and otherwise ignore that they are on my finger. I'm forever scrubbing my rings. But, either a ring works with my lifestyle, or it has no place in my life. I've sold several for that reason. They were simply impractical for me. So, PS member, know theyself! Be realistic about how you really will wear these and make sure you design with that in mind..

 

[Lykame]

I had a Jocelyn by Victor Canera and the band part was just a hair shy of 2mm. I had bright cut pave set single cuts. No holes for cleaning. I keep it clean with warm water and dish soap. Every now and then I throw it in the ultrasonic. No issues with security or it being difficult to clean. I just trusted Victor with him making it the way he sees fit. So whatever way he has chosen I will assume is the best way it can be made. That’s just the way I think. I am sure others will have other opinions.

This is really useful, thank you. I've basically been told it's down to preference rather than one way being better than the other, but I almost wish I was 'told' what to do so that it wasn't my decision...

 

[Lykame]

I’ve got an 18k WG bead-set single cut band with lovely big azures behind each single-cut. It’s 2mm on top tapering down to 1.6mm on the palm-side. It’s been kinda bombproof so far with no deformation or any issues but the diamonds only go acros the top of the finger and not down the side so may not be a good example.
I love how the azures look too (arty shot through a loupe )

Those are beautiful azures and that's a beautiful picture, thank you for sharing, it's really helpful. How many azures are there on each side if it's only going across the top and not down the side?

 

[Lykame]

Holes and azures (square windows) are structurally quite different. Azures are actually made differently and they are stronger than holes. The azures are cast as such and then finished. They offer much more structurally stability. The holes are made by taking a solid band and drilling if full of holes. That can weaken the structure. So, the structural piece is both the form of the cleaning access and how thick, off the finger, the ring is. The more metal you have in thickness, you can cheat a bit in width (but not much). You might ask the maker if they could use azures, like @foxinsox, to get the cleaning and draining access. If they could drill a hole or make a single channel at the end of each diamond run, at least liquid could run out. But, that will likely make the ring thicker (off the finger). So, its a balance since you have a very specific look you want.

If you go with a solid back, you may have cases where you might got stuff stuck under the stones. A poster a while back had a solid piece of something that had to be pulled out. In extreme cases, the stone has to be unset. Most of the time, you'll have to just scrub a lot and use alcohol to get the water off the back of the stone.

I know myself and I know that I need cleaning access on rings. I won't be careful when I wear them, I won't hesitate to plunge my hands in the dirt, or other stuff. I'll mix dough, clean stuff and otherwise ignore that they are on my finger. I'm forever scrubbing my rings. But, either a ring works with my lifestyle, or it has no place in my life. I've sold several for that reason. They were simply impractical for me. So, PS member, know theyself! Be realistic about how you really will wear these and make sure you design with that in mind..

Thanks so much @rockysalamander, you are so educational as always and I really appreciate it. I did not know there was an actual structural difference between azures and pilot holes, but it does make sense that azures would be more secure - up until a certain point? My pavé will go around 3/4 of the band so that would seem like a lot of additional metal to lose, although I get how certain shapes are actually more structurally sound than other shapes.

I think my band is going to be 1.8-2mm tall and 2mm wide, so quite squarish, which is my preference anyway.

I know myself too, and through all of this I feel sure I need cleaning access to the back of the stones. I want a ring that I can wear through the majority of normal activities - although I wouldn't do things like kneed dough and put my hand in dirt with them, but that's mostly because I don't want to have to go through the rigmarole of cleaning them - but I would potentially do some things in the garden with garden gloves on. I could take it off, it's just about me remembering. I want a wearable ring, I don't want to baby it, but I would be sensible with it, if that makes sense. So pretty sure I want some sort of access underneath, and I would ask my vendor what type of access they feel is most appropriate.

Then the next thing is, with the fact there'll be holes in it in mind, would it be more sensible to get 2.2mm rather than 2mm, even though aesthetically that's not quite the look I was after, because for the sake of 0.2mm I would have a more secure ring??? Or should I not worry about that?

Thank you again.

 

[sledge]

Based on what I've read this far, I think you want holes or azures, as that's who you are and that's okay. Just have a conversation with your jeweler about maintaining the structural integrity and if they have concerns and/or alternate construction methods to make your vision come to life.

Structurally you can do some cool stuff if you have people that are passionate in design and good structural engineers. One example is a $200 million project I built had a massive weight bearing cantilever on the main entrance of the building. When looking for ways to cut the budget it was suggested to put a column at the end of the cantilever (fancy word for over hang) and it would save a few million. The architect and owner was insistent on keeping as is so we built that way.

Below is a pic showing what I mean. The blue vertical line is roughly the last column support. The yellow X over the tree is where we suggested putting a column but nothing is there. The red horizontal line is the cantilevered load. As you can see, this piece supports a massive glass wall of sorts.



By the way the method that @foxinsox ring is crafted reminds me of a web stiffener on a structural beam. To me, it appears some structural thought was given to her design.



Holes are always tricky. In load bearing applications you have specific rules about not placing holes over a certain diameter and spacing from edges and normally not in the middle third of a span length.

Again, think through this and have a conversation with your designer about your options. Things I pointed out above are extremes and involve a life safety factor so they are exaggerated in a sense to application of jewelery but the same basic principles hold true at some level.

 

[sledge]

LOL this will teach me to edit photos on my phone. The blue line should move to the right of the parking sign. Blown up you can see the column support if you look close enough. Sorry about that.

 

[Lykame]

@sledge, the blue did look quite ambitious but I understood the point you're trying to make!!! And I can see the beam you mean. Eloquently put as always and I know what you mean about @foxinsox's design. I think mine would literally just be holes, so I have to bear that in mind especially with what @rockysalamander was saying.

My vendor is sure that 2mm with holes will be structurally secure, but in view of my concern about all this we have agreed for me to get a wax that's 2.2mm to see what that looks like. It's a cost, so ouch, but never mind. If that looks aesthetically nice to me then I'll get the 2.2mm and that will remove all my worry about being on the border of too thin especially with the holes. Turns out there's not only diamond mind-clean but there's also setting mind-clean. Who knew? It will delay the production of my ring by at least another week but by this point I really don't care, this has been in the works since June - what's another week to get it right?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My Tiffany Legacy band is 2.2mm, so I will attach a picture for you. The e-ring shank is no more than 2mm. The Legacy band does have the square azures except for a section that has the Tiffany name. I will say, though, that they are so tiny even on a 2.2mm band that it isn't practical to be able to actually get in there and brush the minute pavilions. And ultrasonics (which may or may not be a good idea to use) won't get them 100% clean, either. So it's possible that the holes just result in more dirt getting under the stones. If only wearing one band with the e-ring, I like the 2.2mm and even prefer 2.5mm to have larger diamonds. If you plan to stack bands, then obviously the 2.2 might be better.

So many people have bands from Victor and I have never heard a complaint here about the little pave stones getting dirty underneath and the sparkle being diminished on the band. So if your ringmaker and Victor prefer making them solid, I'd be inclined to go with solid.

 

[Lykame]

My Tiffany Legacy band is 2.2mm, so I will attach a picture for you. The e-ring shank is no more than 2mm. The Legacy band does have the square azures except for a section that has the Tiffany name. I will say, though, that they are so tiny even on a 2.2mm band that it isn't practical to be able to actually get in there and brush the minute pavilions. And ultrasonics (which may or may not be a good idea to use) won't get them 100% clean, either. So it's possible that the holes just result in more dirt getting under the stones. If only wearing one band with the e-ring, I like the 2.2mm and even prefer 2.5mm to have larger diamonds. If you plan to stack bands, then obviously the 2.2 might be better.

So many people have bands from Victor and I have never heard a complaint here about the little pave stones getting dirty underneath and the sparkle being diminished on the band. So if your ringmaker and Victor prefer making them solid, I'd be inclined to go with solid.

Thanks @diamondseeker2006. Your ring set is absolutely beautiful.

Your 2.2mm looks so much wider than the 2mm although I recognise they're different styles, but both are lovely. My previous ring had a 2.8mm band (with 7.5 point diamonds), and I LOVED the band, it was so beautiful a size on me. However, it just didn't look good with the central diamond and that bugged me too. It's possible that to compensate I'm going too far in the opposite direction.

I'm getting a wax made for 2.2mm to see - I think currently if I can be happy with the 2.2mm, then I will go for the holes, although I know what you mean about the holes potentially attracting dirt. I'll accept that risk I think. But if I go for the 2mm then I'm going to strongly think about going without holes - especially with everyone's reassurance that there's really unlikely to be an issue with cleaning.

Thank you.

 

[Victor Canera]

Hi Lykame,

I can only speak for us but we only do ajour openings on pave pieces that are past 2.2mm-2.3mm or so. Thinner bands are already delicate and thin and you wouldn’t want to weaken the piece further by drilling through the metal completely and also create those square openings underneath. The more metal that’s taken out, the weaker the band becomes.

The thinking behind doing ajour on wider bands is that they have a bit more metal to work with so they’re a little more durable. Leaving out ajour openings on these bands would also make the pieces more bulky and heavy since ajour lightens the piece.

This isn’t a blanket statement though, a thin band with ajour can be fine IF the wearer is extremely careful with the piece. A wide band even without ajour can also be deformed if enough force is exerted on top of it. I’ve seen extremely wide men’s bands measuring 5mm or so be deformed from accidents before so it’s all relative.

Best of luck to you!

 

[Lykame]

Victor Canera" data-source="post: 4456794" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Hi Lykame,

I can only speak for us but we only do ajour openings on pave pieces that are past 2.2mm-2.3mm or so. Thinner bands are already delicate and thin and you wouldn’t want to weaken the piece further by drilling through the metal completely and also create those square openings underneath. The more metal that’s taken out, the weaker the band becomes.

The thinking behind doing ajour on wider bands is that they have a bit more metal to work with so they’re a little more durable. Leaving out ajour openings on these bands would also make the pieces more bulky and heavy since ajour lightens the piece.

This isn’t a blanket statement though, a thin band with ajour can be fine IF the wearer is extremely careful with the piece. A wide band even without ajour can also be deformed if enough force is exerted on top of it. I’ve seen extremely wide men’s bands measuring 5mm or so be deformed from accidents before so it’s all relative.

Best of luck to you!

Dear Victor,

Thank you incredibly much for your response, I can't imagine how busy you must be at the moment so to find the time to come on here and answer any questions is really appreciated and lovely of you.

I think your response and everyone else's has made things very clear to me, and that's been very helpful. For me to be very comfortable with my ring so that I wouldn't have to baby it and be exceptionally careful (just sensibly careful like always) I will have to either go 2.2 with or 2 without. I know what you mean that it's all relative and will bear that in mind too.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,
Lydia.

 

[foxinsox]

Those are beautiful azures and that's a beautiful picture, thank you for sharing, it's really helpful. How many azures are there on each side if it's only going across the top and not down the side?

There’s 7 azures. I’m still really surprised at the robustness of this band given how delicate it is and I wear it everyday including fencing and given the way I grip the foil in a bout sometimes, I really would have expected some warping although having read @rockysalamander and @sledge’s replies above, it makes sense.
I hope you’ll post the wax when you get it - keen to see this project!

 

[sledge]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the wax models. Have you already received one of the 2mm variant? Also I know it's splitting hairs but is it a plastic or wax model?

I ask because when designing my fiancee's ring I got really disappointed with the first plastic (greenish blue) model I got. It was bulky and very rough compared to the final product. We made a few changes and then Amy built a wax model (purple) and sent me photos as were on a truncated time table at that point.

The wax model was much more refined and more true to what would become the final product.

Of course the final product is a completely refined and polished product. In layman's terms it starts out a little fat and then gets toned down as it goes through the various finish processes.

My point is that a 2.2mm plastic model will likely feel and look bad as you already think 2.2mm is too wide and just the nature of the process as noted above.

As far as the conparison pic above, part of the size difference you are seeing is the e-ring band is a 2mm knife edge and the wedding band is more flat so the difference is greatly exaggerated IMO. Not that the poster mislead you but it's just a visual trick that happens with any knife edge.

 

[sledge]

Also my price from DK was for all CAD, design, models and finished product. I can understand an upcharge if they sent you an initial model and you signed off, but if this is your first model I'd ask why.

 

[Lykame]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the wax models. Have you already received one of the 2mm variant? Also I know it's splitting hairs but is it a plastic or wax model?

I ask because when designing my fiancee's ring I got really disappointed with the first plastic (greenish blue) model I got. It was bulky and very rough compared to the final product. We made a few changes and then Amy built a wax model (purple) and sent me photos as were on a truncated time table at that point.

The wax model was much more refined and more true to what would become the final product.

Of course the final product is a completely refined and polished product. In layman's terms it starts out a little fat and then gets toned down as it goes through the various finish processes.

My point is that a 2.2mm plastic model will likely feel and look bad as you already think 2.2mm is too wide and just the nature of the process as noted above.

As far as the conparison pic above, part of the size difference you are seeing is the e-ring band is a 2mm knife edge and the wedding band is more flat so the difference is greatly exaggerated IMO. Not that the poster mislead you but it's just a visual trick that happens with any knife edge.

Hi @sledge,

Yeah I understand the optical illusion that will happen with a plain solitaire knife edge band compared to a flat band covered with diamond and with metal edges. It's quite the dramatic optical illusion however!

I do indeed have a purple wax model and I agreed on this one. I was aware that further models would incur an additional charge, which is a shame but I understand.





There's another couple of pictures I want to attach but my phone is being a PITB.

So this wax's internal diameter is a smidge small, which is fine because that metal will be polished away. I don't have digital jewellery callipers but using a normal tape measure the shank is bang on 2mm and the detail on it is very nice. I like it proportionately to the central stone but am aware that it is a thin band and it's why I'm struggling to imagine pilot holes underneath it.

Hopefully I will be chuffed with the 2.2mm band. Not so keen on the CAD version of it but I think part of that is just the scale and on a to-size wax that will be very helpful.

 

[Lykame]

Sussed it out, I was trying to upload both at once and it wanted it to be one at a time.

To provide some sense of scale.

 

[chappy]

In case you haven't seen my thread, here's some photos of 2mm without holes:

Under super magnification you can see this is a fairly old, well-worn ring, but the diamonds are still bright and sparkly. I don't use ultrasound, just a soak in warm water with dish soap and it comes up real nice. It's a daily ring for me.

I wouldn't let the thought of no holes worry you too much!

 

[chappy]

@Lykame whoops we posted at the same time! That's the 2mm model, right? It looks really good. If you go for 2.2mm, would you get slightly bigger stones?

 

[Lykame]

Beautiful ring!

Ironically watched your video again of your hamster learning tricks this morning. Makes me smile.

 

[Lykame]

@Lykame whoops we posted at the same time! That's the 2mm model, right? It looks really good. If you go for 2.2mm, would you get slightly bigger stones?

Yeah that's the 2mm model. I do love it. The stones on it would be 1.8mm (0.025 carats or 2.5 points each). If I go for 2.2mm, the stones would be 2mm or 0.03 carats - 3 points each.

 

[chappy]

Beautiful ring!

Ironically watched your video again of your hamster learning tricks this morning. Makes me smile.

omg it's you!!! You were so helpful in my thread, of course you've seen it already. D'oh! I totally didn't recognize your username but I should've remembered your dog. Oops!!! And my ham makes me smile a lot too, I just brought her to work yesterday! She's over 2 years old and while she's still quite active I know with ham lifespans I won't have much longer with her now. Better love her while I can!

Yeah that's the 2mm model. I do love it. The stones on it would be 1.8mm (0.025 carats or 2.5 points each). If I go for 2.2mm, the stones would be 2mm or 0.03 carats - 3 points each.

I see, then just go with whichever proportion you like the best, nevermind hole or no hole! I think since you already had the 2.8mm, you might want to go with 2mm for the most appreciable difference. Do you have pics of the 2.8mm on hand?

 

[sledge]

LOL true PS members here....2.2 means bigger melee. Love it.

Just a different way to look at things...

• 2.2mm is only 10% wider than the 2mm
• The 0.20mm difference is about 1/128th of an inch