shape
carat
color
clarity

Vendor's dilemma

oldminer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 3, 2000
Messages
6,756
Fashion is often influenced by the cost of production. With precious metal prices rising to record levels we have seen fashion take to a course where thinner and lighter is "fashionable". It certainly is logical, but it is my belief we have reached and likely have passed beyond a reasonable limit to an extent on how delicate and light some ring mountings are to be made. While the comments I am about to make apply more broadly, I'll just touch on a couple portions which seem to be creating frequent problems.

Rings with 1.5mm shanks are thin and delicate. For many people they are way too thin to be durable. Added to this trend for thinness is the micropave' of many light items further reducing the metal content and therefore also reducing durability. A ring for daily wear takes an incredible amount of abuse in the normal routine of life. Add this wear factor to a light and overly delicate design with tiny diamonds plugged into a Swiss cheese of holes for holding these stones there is nearly nothing left to give the ring sufficient strength.
These very delicate and beautiful rings are just going to give consumers problems sooner or later. Some folks may be very careful and dainty with their rings on, but most people are going to see trouble in their future with such pieces.

One of the things which gave rise to this fashion are some of the wonderful Art Deco and filigree items from the first 1/2 of the 1900's. One must remember that these items mostly look so delicate and fine today because they were made heavy enough when new that they have worn away a good deal of their metal by now, but are still holding up. They were not so thin when new. And, the thin ones made for less money back then have worn out and been scrapped or rebuilt.

I am seeing bracelets too thin to be durable, earrings with friction nuts so thin that they won't stay on the ear, micropave' and invisibly set diamond jewelry made so light that the items bend and the stones fall out. If you have insurance, you are covered for the loss of the diamonds, but normal wear and tear on jewelry is not covered.

My suggestion is to investigate and shop well to determine if a light, delicate item is really right for you. Using a 2 or 2.5mm shank
will help the ring to stand up to normal wear. Using hand made or die struck components, which are more dense metal than cast components, also often increases hardness, and durability. The labor to make a slightly heavier item is truly nominal. Only the added metal increases the cost and while it will cost more, the jewelry will last a long, long time and frequently never give the owner any problem over decades of use.

Not to make light of what I see as a a tragic situation, but I see the chase for thinness in rings akin to the public's mistaken attraction to the super thin fashion models who are about one tiny meal away from turning into dust. Just a little more body on both jewelry and models would not be a mistake....... (My experience is all with jewelry and unfortunately not with models, oh well.)

The vendor's dilemma is to agree to sell you an item which will not wear well over a long period of time, or sell you what you want in spite of this reasonably clear knowledge. All vendors want and need your business. Some will always agree to make whatever you wish. Some may warn you and then make what you want anyway and a few will never agree to make a piece too light or too thin to hold stones well or to be less than durable. Let the vendor guide you and keep an open mind. We cannot go thinner and thinner still. We have reached that limit already. Fashion and common sense will head in the opposite direction at some point. Look for advice and listen to those things which your vendor suggests concerning daily use and wear and tear issues. You may be glad you did.
 
David, we just fleshed this out in a long 5-page thread.

[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]

You DO bring up something new and very important though.
I was not going to bring it up but because some women here are so hyper-sensitive on the subject of body weight but . . .
Yes I also wonder if the absurd fashion for women's bodies to be impossibly thin as a toothpicks has also polluted the jewelry aesthetic.

It seems when it comes to bodies or rings, impossibly thin is in.
 
Kenny,

I, like many others, just can't possibly read all the threads, but the one you mention is basically very much in line with what my own feelings were driving me to make the new topic posting on the same subject. Maybe we can help influence consumers not to expect the impossible and to encourage vendors to say "NO" when the design being requested conflicts with important issues such as security of the stones and reasonable durability expectations. It is very difficult to say no when the client may go to someone else who is willing in spite of the potential problems. Jewelers have been held liable for selling products which were not properly designed even after verbally warning clients that the design was being made against their advice. I was involved in such a suit a an expert. Everyone lost on the deal. There are no winners once everyone gets their attorney's working and it goes to trial.

I do believe there are many well meaning fellows who are buying engagement rings hoping to meet the fashion expectations of their bride to be, but the bride may not be well aware of the durability issue and the person buying the ring may be hearing only about what is most in fashion. Vendors and manufacturers will need to begin to contemplate how to best educate their customers so that their advice will be heeded and customers will not just think the vendor is trying to sell them a more costly, less fashionable product in the mistaken belief that the profit motive is the real issue and not based on trying to provide beneficial advice.
 
While it was just discussed, I think that Dave's perspective is important.
He has no stake in someones setting and is an impartial expert and for him to post something like this for discussion and another viewpoint is very welcome.
For the record I agree with Dave that it is a large issue in today's market.
 
Actually I gladly welcome another thread on this important topic.

Maybe more vendors will speak up this time.
I don't blame them for staying quiet though, and I commend the few who did speak up.

Vendors who make those thin rings may see posting about them here as a lose / lose.
Nobody wants to be seen as admitting they are making something that may be "not safe".

And any vendor with a policy of, say, "We do not make rings under 2.2 mm, Period!" will lose sales to the many vendors who will.
 
This is a trend that I've noticed as well. I've been to a reputable jeweller two months ago and was surprised to see how thinner their rings have gone over the years. I bought a ring two-three years ago from them that was much thicker than their newest designs.

It left me wondering about their standards of quality and I will most probably never buy anythhing from them again. Unfortunately, most customers won't notice this evolution and will keep on buying stuff that has become less durable but is by no way any cheaper!
 
From my perspective as a manufacturing vendor,this is no problem whatsoever- other than requiring a basic grasp of how to run a customer service oriented business.
What that means is that you stand behind your product.
When we started selling rings with a lot of little diamonds set into them ( pave, or micro-setting), I started making clients aware that it's possible to lose a small stone out of the setting. It's very rare to knock a stone out of a three stone ring, for example- especially compared to pave set diamonds. I'd estimate that 5% of all ring with pave settings will, at some point, loose a pave diamond.
Sometimes it is due to a prior size adjustment- sometimes it's due to rough wear- and sometimes there seems to be no apparent cause.
Does not matter- we replace the little stone in any event.
So far it's not been a problem.
We've replaced quite a few little diamonds.
The cost is more than made up through the good will it creates with valuable clients, and also the value of being able to tell prospective buyers that we'll stand behind the product.


We've also made quite a few rings with thinner shanks- not to try and save money, but because it's a popular style.
So far they have not proved problematic.
A few bent ones, yes, but again, the cost to repair these is not all that great, in the scheme of things.

IMO, the smartest dealers will capitalize on this, instead of viewing it as a liability.
I love the way the thinner shanks look- and can totally understand why people want to buy them.

The key is making the buyer aware of the possible liability, and then devising a way to back up the work..
 
Frenchcut|1298667445|2859505 said:
This is a trend that I've noticed as well. I've been to a reputable jeweller two months ago and was surprised to see how thinner their rings have gone over the years. I bought a ring two-three years ago from them that was much thicker than their newest designs.

It left me wondering about their standards of quality and I will most probably never buy anythhing from them again. Unfortunately, most customers won't notice this evolution and will keep on buying stuff that has become less durable but is by no way any cheaper!

I recently went to a trunk show and found this to be true as well - the weight or heft is just not in the pieces that five years ago you found. Some of the rings looked the same but they certainly didn't have the same weight or feel. Maybe it's just the vendors way of keeping costs down in light of recent metal increases but the quality was definitely lacking.

That of course is a different ballgame than requesting a super thin ring from a vendor. If the vendor explains the possibilities of going with a thinner shank and the customer insists - oh well! You just can't expect a bendable ring to stand the test of a few decades of wear.
 
Another consumer who is happy to see more tradespeople publicly weighing in on this debate.


Re. responsibility - I guess I'm of two minds.

As a consumer... I do feel that vendors have a responsibility to *accept* responsibility for their products' virtues and failings. Some PSers understand the risks of ultra-thin bands and choose that route anyway, and IMO that is a very different scenario from the unsuspecting young man who comes in and commissions a copy of the HW micropave halo that his girlfriend left a magazine cutout of on the countertop.

However, as a consumer, I also understand that it's *my* job to do some thorough homework before I make a multi-thousand dollar purchase - and that part of that purchase is the setting. I wouldn't buy a car on salespeople's say-so - I'd be Googling every catchphrase I didn't recognise the moment I got home, so why should buying a super-pricey rock be different? BUT I think PS naturally attracts the researchers, and the type of superthin band a researcher would be willing to invest in is going to be of a very different standard than the Zales christmas special..

Impasse..!
 
I was going to write something but Yssie said it better than I ever can.

1. Consumers have a right to chose what design they want - thin or not - it is their choice
2. Vendors should warn consumers of the risks and let the consumers make an educated decision
3. Consumers should do their own research and not blindly trust any "sales person"
4. Vendors should stand behind their products but protect themselves if they are making something against their recommendation
5. Vendors have a right to say no .. consumers also have the right to walk away
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top