Please help me with what to do next.

[bubbesooz]

I have a beautiful Diamond that I bought with Pricescope help many years ago. I had in reset and wore it 10 years daily with no issues until a small diamond fell out and decided to get it reset. (picture 1) I had it reset by someone I found thru this board.I received the ring in March and wore it for about 6 weeks. It felt uncomfortable and I took it off of my finger and it looked like picture two.I sent it back to the designer who said I must have slammed it in a door or something... which I didn't.Crush my finger? nope! She repaired it and sent it back. I received it back in June and wore it daily since then. Today when I took it off it looked like picture three.Please tell my why this is happening. I don't know what I should do at this point.Has this happened to anyone before?Please advise.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The first ring looks like a heavier thicker setting and the second one is more delicate. Rings are not going to go out of shape or get scratches without some force being exerted on them. I take my rings off if I am lifting anything with my hands, cooking, or even loading and unloading the dishwasher, etc. I try to avoid grasping door handles with my left hand and I never sleep in my rings. It just sounds like maybe you were used to a heavier setting and not you have a more delicate one and just need to be more conscious of it when you wear it and remove it more? We have seen this happen from time to time from various different types of ring, but it usually can only be explained from wear.

If it is platinum, the two harder alloys are 90plat/10iridium or 95plat/5ruthenium. If it is 95plat/5iridium, that's a softer alloy and will be less scratch resistant and maybe more likely to bend.

Regardless, I think that maybe you just need to have a heavier shank made. Delicate just may not work for you.

 

[drk14]

What is the thickness and width of the shank at the bottom part of the ring? What type of metal is it made of? It seems like the ring does not have sufficient structural integrity to be compatible with the forces to which it is subjected when you wear it in your daily life.

The following thread is long, but informative:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/are-rings-too-thin-these-days.155780/

(please see especially the informative posts contributed by @Michael_E)

If you want to continue to wear the ring every day (not just for special occasions), then the only solution is to have it remade with a thicker shank, or a sturdier metal, or both.

 

[bubbesooz]

The ring is platinum. That was what was recommended to me. My old ring was white gold.When I take the tape measure it looks like it is .5

 

[drk14]

When I take the tape measure it looks like it is .5

0.5 mm??

Can you compare it to the thickness of a nickel (1.95mm), quarter (1.75mm), penny (1.52mm), and dime (1.35mm), and tell us which coins are thicker or thinner than your shank?

 

[drk14]

Also, what composition platinum is it?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It's virtually impossible for it to be .5mm. No ringmaker here would make a shank that thin. Most of the rings we see are about 1.8mm or wider for the mid section of a shank. Sometimes a tiny bit less at the base but the thickness provides extra strength. I have a few antique style rings that are delicate with thin shanks and I haven't seen any wear on them or on my daily wear platinum rings which are also about 2mm.

If it were me, I'd see if a wider thicker shank could be put on the ring, but I'd still be very careful not to ever lift things, workout, or do any cooking or housework with the rings on.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

0.5 mm??

Can you compare it to the thickness of a nickel (1.95mm), quarter (1.75mm), penny (1.52mm), and dime (1.35mm), and tell us which coins are thicker or thinner than your shank?

That's genius. How could we have not known that by now???!!!

 

[mamasooz]

Sorry about the measuring.It is the thickness of a penny.

 

[drk14]

Sorry about the measuring.It is the thickness of a penny.

OK, so it's about 1.5mm which is considered perilously thin, even for platinum. Since this was a custom design, whose choice was it to make the shank so delicate? Some jewelers refuse to make rings this thin, and others will at least warn the customer that their ring will be at risk for structural damage (if the customer insists on a super-delicate look).

 

[mamasooz]

SO to summarize ...putting a thicker shank on it should do the trick?Any idea why the band looks chewed up?I don't do any weight lifting ,cleaning etc.I sit at a desk most of the day!

 

[msop04]

SO to summarize ...putting a thicker shank on it should do the trick?Any idea why the band looks chewed up?I don't do any weight lifting ,cleaning etc.I sit at a desk most of the day!

The band looks "chewed up" because you've hit it or scraped it against something at some point. Metal doesn't just do that. You may not have even realized it, but that's what has happened. Sound like you're hard on rings (and that's okay), so you may just not be able to wear more delicate styles without risk of damage.

ETA: the shank doesn't look like it's 1.5mm... it looks more like 1.8+

 

[drk14]

SO to summarize ...putting a thicker shank on it should do the trick?Any idea why the band looks chewed up?I don't do any weight lifting ,cleaning etc.I sit at a desk most of the day!

Yes, for a platinum ring, a shank should be at least 1.8mm, seems to be the consensus.

As far as the scratches, from my experience, a major culprit is metal door handles and door knobs (and/or metal drawer pulls). Something as simple as this can also be responsible for bending your 1.5mm ring.

ETA: If you're having the ring remade, note that as @diamondseeker2006 has pointed out, the alloys 90plat/10iridium and 95plat/5ruthenium will be better choices for you, because they are harder. Also, if your budget allows, a handforged ring will have more strength than a cast ring, all things being equal. However, making the shank thicker is the most important factor.

 

[bubbesooz]

Thank you all for your responses. I am still not sure what to do. I want to be able to wear and enjoy the ring and I am right handed... and the ring on that finger is fine!The diamond is on my left. Why would I want a ring that I could not wear?I have totally seen people that lift weights etc. smash rings but I barely exercise and I do not clean etc.I can not understand why I was able to wear the first design for 10plus years and it is fine.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The first ring is heavier/thicker than the second. That's why it held up better. How wide is the shank on the first ring? Incidentally, don't measure the shank at the bottom, measure it on the sides because sometimes they do taper thinner at the base. Then it may also need more thickness (shank height).

I am thinking you might want to go over 2mm on a new shank. Like maybe 2.2 or so.

Oh, and your insurance should pay for the shank to be remade, I would think. But I normally pay for repairs myself so as not to risk higher premiums.

 

[drk14]

I can not understand why I was able to wear the first design for 10plus years and it is fine.

Dear @bubbesooz / @mamasooz ,
Your frustration is palpable and completely understandable. However, the premise of your question above -- i.e., the expectation that two different ring designs should have similar ability to withstand physical forces -- is unfortunately not valid. We cannot escape the laws of physics, which dictate that when the mechanical load exceeds the yield strength of the material, permanent deformation will result. Therefore, because you had different outcomes with two different rings, one or more of the following must be true:

1. The maximum mechanical load applied to the first ring was lower than the maximum mechanical load that was applied to the second ring.
2. The yield strength of the metal alloy in the first ring was higher than the yield strength of the metal in the second ring (e.g., perhaps the first ring was 90/10 platinum/iridium and the second ring was 95/5 platinum/iridium, or the second ring may have had porosity while the first ring may have been work-hardened by the original jeweler).
3. The cross-section of the weakest part of the shank of the second ring had a lower second moment of area than did the shank of the first ring, because the dimensions and shapes of the shank cross-sections were different.

My money is on #3 (differences in shank geometry), because even seemingly small differences in the dimensions and shape of the shank cross-section can have huge differences on the mechanical strength of the ring, and because it is obvious from your pictures that the two shank designs differ significantly.

For example, in your fourth picture, we can see that the new shank has a furrow, or may even consist of two approximately cylindrical wires side-by-side. This significantly weakens the shank compared to a solid rectangular cross-section (which is what your old ring appears to have). In particular, if we compare the strength of a shank that has a rectangular cross-section to the strength of a shank consisting of two circular cylinders joined together, then the rectangular design is 70% stronger (assuming the thickness, width and material properties are identical).

In addition, your pictures suggest that the shank thickness of the first ring was approximately 20% larger than the shank thickness of the second ring. Even this seemingly minor difference would make the shank of the first ring an additional 70% stronger. Perhaps the first ring's shank was also a bit wider than the shank of the newer ring. All together, these small differences in proportions and shape of the shank cross-section could be responsible for a 3-fold difference in the mechanical strength of the ring.

If you're wearing a ring that is three times weaker than the first ring, then it is very likely that even if you are no harder on the second ring than you were on the first ring, the weaker ring could easily be deformed by the forces generated during your normal daily routine. And this is unfortunately what has happened to you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@drk14 Are you an engineer? That was one of the most detailed scientific explanations I have ever seen!

 

[drk14]

@drk14 Are you an engineer? That was one of the most detailed scientific explanations I have ever seen!

Thank you, @diamondseeker2006. Yes, I am an engineer and scientist.

 

[rockysalamander]

Thank you, @diamondseeker2006. Yes, I am an engineer and scientist.

Did you factor in the effect of the 3-sided pave (or maybe 2-sided, pic does not show)? The old setting shank started out solid, but was then then drilled full of holes to accommodate the pave-set diamonds. I can't even remember where to find mechanical strength equations for holey metal... {sorry for the nerdy thread-jack OP }

 

[drk14]

@rockysalamander , my calculations were restricted to the bottom of the shank, which is where failure manifested in the second ring. There's not enough information provided about either of the two rings to do a conclusive failure-mode analysis. It is interesting to note, however, that if the shank pave in Ring #1 was only two-sided, it would not take that big of hit in terms of bending strength, since it is the mass furthest away from the bending axis that matters most. This is why perforated beams are a common approach to reduce the mass-to-stiffness ratio of a structure.

 

[rockysalamander]

@rockysalamander , my calculations were restricted to the bottom of the shank, which is where failure manifested in the second ring. There's not enough information provided about either of the two rings to do a conclusive failure-mode analysis. It is interesting to note, however, that if the shank pave in Ring #1 was only two-sided, it would not take that big of hit in terms of bending strength, since it is the mass furthest away from the bending axis that matters most. This is why perforated beams are a common approach to reduce the mass-to-stiffness ratio of a structure.

Cool. That's what I thought about 2-sided pave. I remember this kind of example from materials class a few decades ago.

bubbesooz I'm not sure it will be much consolation for you, but my mom has this problem with rings. All rings. She's a size 6.5 and rather slim and tall. Yet, anything that does not look like it was built for Mr.T bends and torques on her hands. There is something about the bio-mechanics of her hands that strain metal like nobody else I ever met (until now ). Ironically, my huge Russian dad can wear a delicate band without harm to it. I just asked my mom and she said the need 2.5 width and 'heavy comfort fit' in thickness (~1.9 mm) for cast rings. If hand forged, she can go a bit slimmer, but not a lot. Most of her daily rings are channel set bands with a thicker outer wall for the shank.

 

[bubbesooz]

Thank you all so much for your thoughts and time. The designer of the ring has been lovely and will work with me to get this resolved. It is just a pain for me and the designer to keep paying to send the ring back and forth across the country!(Rocky Salamander... am I your MOM?)

 

[mamasooz]

Imagine my surprise when I looked down and saw 3/4 of a ring on my finger. Absolute paid.This was the third time I had the ring redone and it looks Like a slightly larger shank was soldered on to my setting. Still not able to get a full year out of the setting. Somewhat of a happy ending. After a full day of searching we found the diamond.Please advise what I should do in this situation.

 

[msop04]

Imagine my surprise when I looked down and saw 3/4 of a ring on my finger. Absolute paid.This was the third time I had the ring redone and it looks Like a slightly larger shank was soldered on to my setting. Still not able to get a full year out of the setting. Somewhat of a happy ending. After a full day of searching we found the diamond.Please advise what I should do in this situation.

Okay... so you just looked down and *BOOM*... your setting was neatly broken at exactly those points? And you have no idea how that could have happened?? I'm so confused right now.

OP, there is just no way your ring simply fell apart. I feel like you're extremely hard on your rings and just don't realize it.

ETA: And it does look like another jeweler has resized your ring by changing the shank out at exactly those points... because I can't imagine any reputable jeweler would do such a thing to "fix" it from where it was bent last time.

 

[WinkHPD]

It looks to me as if your jeweler put on a new half shank that was heavier than what you had. It does appear that the heavier shank is withstanding the wear better. Now, if it would have just stayed attached.

It is impossible to know how it happens that both sides of the the half shank broke at the same time, that is very hard for me to envision. It may have been that one side had broken loose some time ago and it was not noticed if you are not taking the ring off for cleaning on a regular basis.

At this point, I think you may want to have a new mounting made, with a single shank in one piece, not soldered together. This will be stronger, and should give you some piece of mind.

You may wish to consider going even heavier on the shank. I know that many like the narrow shanks, but even with good insurance, the trauma of losing a favorite diamond is a high price to pay for too delicate rings.

Wink

 

[whitewave]

I’m at a loss on what to say or how to help. I’ve never seen anything like this before.

Did you get it sized or anything locally?

 

[Tophat1]

Who did the work on the ring to thicken the shank after your issue last year?

 

[mamasooz]

Let me be clear... I clean the ring regularly.Today as I was leaving my house I looked down at my hand and was wearing the open band.The stone had fallen off at some point during the day.I didn’t feel it fall off. I am extremely grateful that I was able to find the diamond. It is traumatic to look down and discover 3/4 of a ring with no diamond.The diamond is over 4 carats so even though it is Insured I was frantic. I had it set by someone that is regurly mentioned on Pricescope. Anyone recommend someone who can build me a strong ring.My old one lasted for 10years !

 

[mamasooz]

Okay... so you just looked down and *BOOM*... your setting was neatly broken at exactly those points? And you have no idea how that could have happened?? I'm so confused right now.

OP, there is just no way your ring simply fell apart. I feel like you're extremely hard on your rings and just don't realize it.

ETA: And it does look like another jeweler has resized your ring by changing the shank out at exactly those points... because I can't imagine any reputable jeweler would do such a thing to "fix" it from where it was bent last time.

 

[mamasooz]

I never had it resized... I sent it back To the designer because the band wrapped twice within the first two months of ownership.My last setting lasted 10 years.