I want to make a diamond ring

I've been collecting diamonds, and other gems. The goal is to build
myself a diamond ring. It will contain over a hundred diamonds,
convering the ring - with no metal showing, only the gems - mostly 1,
2, 3 pts in size, with a centrepiece of various gems. The largest
will only be a 1/2 carat.

I believe I'll have to carve a mold, and then find out how to cast it,
followed by placing the gems on it without any clasps - as they would
disrupt the wavelike flow of the vision I have for this. The form
will be a flower, concave and convex dips.

This is the context, and I'm hoping that someone will be able to lend
me some guidance of where to start.

I also have several unfaceted stones that could be used, and would
welcome suggestions of where I might have them faceted.

L

On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:33:25 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry
(Lush) wrote:

It will contain over a hundred diamonds,
convering the ring - with no metal showing, only the gems -

You'll need to start by refining just what you mean by 'no metal showing".
You've got to hold the stones into the ring with something, and normally that
means at least a little bit of metal over the girdle (edges) of each stone,
preferably in at least three spots, though some setting styles do it with only
two such spots. Now, this need not be a lot of metal. One popular and very
pretty method of setting is called pave' setting, which when well done, looks
like the surface is indeed paved with stones. Close examination, however,
shows that the small spaces between stones (if you group lots of round stones
as close together as you can, there will still be small , usually triangular,
spaces between then at various intervals around the stone. are formed into
small beads, or hemispherical masses of metal that extend slightly over the
girdles. These beads serve to clamp the stones down into their seats. They
are actually sitting in very closely fitted holes, with their girdles basically
flush with the surface of the metal, except for those beads holding them down
in the surface. The stones usually don't extend absolutely to the outside edge
of a shape, and the last little edge is left as metal, usually trimmed to a
bright cut line, accenting the shape of the metal form, rather than each stone.
Stones can also be set just flush into a surface, rather than with beads, but
then there needs to be a continuous rim of metal, even if very small, around
the whole stone, so in effect, a web of metal seperates all the stones from
each other. that 'web is metal that's slightly wider at it's outer surface,
due to having been burnished down after the stones were placed in their holes,
and this then forms the structure that holds the stones into the metal.

You may have seen so-called invisible setting, and may be trying for this look.
the name imples no metal holding the stones, but this is not actually the case.
it's done by cutting horizontal grooves into the pavilions of the stones just
below the girdle, and then the metal that holds the stones into the ring is
burnished into those grooves, instead of over the girdle. The trouble with
this type of setting are several.. First of all, it's quite difficult to do,
and many jewelers won't attempt it at all. Second, invisibly set rings are
notorious for being fragile in terms of things like sizing or otherwise
altering the ring, or repairing it later. Once invisibly set stones are set,
that's it. It becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to tighten a stone
that's worked loose, or to size a ring, or otherwise repair any damage. the
stones themselves prevent access to the metal that's holding them, so if it
becomes damaged, there's little way to get to it to fix it. And finally,
you cannot just do this to any stones you happen to have. Generally, well made
invisible set jewelry is precisely made first, and then all the stones are very
carefully selected to be exact fits for the mounting, and then need to be
specifically grooved to match the mounting. Manufacturers doing this generally
just have very large parcels of pre-grooved stones from which to carefully
select the precise sizes they need for a given piece. You will find that there
probably will not be any jewelers or setters willing to try and get your own
stones grooved. That's already a highly specialized diamond cutting task, not
normally done to a customers existing diamonds, and even if it were, it's
unlikely that they would be similar enough in size and shape to work well in
such a setting style. Keep in mind that most invisible set jewelry needs the
stones to match. Varied sizes or graduated sizes are almost impossible to work
with in a secure manner.

So with all that said and done, i'd suggest in strongest terms, that you think
in terms of a minimum of metal showing, rather than no metal showing. You
gotta have something there to hold them.

Peter

Peter W. Rowe wrote:

Hall Peter,
some more Information to that process:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:33:25 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry
(Lush) wrote:


It will contain over a hundred diamonds,
convering the ring - with no metal showing, only the gems -


You'll need to start by refining just what you mean by 'no metal showing".
You've got to hold the stones into the ring with something, and normally that
means at least a little bit of metal over the girdle (edges) of each stone,
preferably in at least three spots, though some setting styles do it with only
two such spots. Now, this need not be a lot of metal. One popular and very
pretty method of setting is called pave' setting, which when well done, looks
like the surface is indeed paved with stones. Close examination, however,
shows that the small spaces between stones (if you group lots of round stones
as close together as you can, there will still be small , usually triangular,
spaces between then at various intervals around the stone. are formed into
small beads, or hemispherical masses of metal that extend slightly over the
girdles. These beads serve to clamp the stones down into their seats. They
are actually sitting in very closely fitted holes, with their girdles basically
flush with the surface of the metal, except for those beads holding them down
in the surface. The stones usually don't extend absolutely to the outside edge
of a shape, and the last little edge is left as metal, usually trimmed to a
bright cut line, accenting the shape of the metal form, rather than each stone.
Stones can also be set just flush into a surface, rather than with beads, but
then there needs to be a continuous rim of metal, even if very small, around
the whole stone, so in effect, a web of metal seperates all the stones from
each other. that 'web is metal that's slightly wider at it's outer surface,
due to having been burnished down after the stones were placed in their holes,
and this then forms the structure that holds the stones into the metal.

A descrption is here.
http://www.butschal.de/werkstatt/seminar/kapitel7.htm

You may have seen so-called invisible setting, and may be trying for this look.
the name imples no metal holding the stones, but this is not actually the case.
it's done by cutting horizontal grooves into the pavilions of the stones just
below the girdle, and then the metal that holds the stones into the ring is
burnished into those grooves, instead of over the girdle. The trouble with
this type of setting are several.. First of all, it's quite difficult to do,
and many jewelers won't attempt it at all. Second, invisibly set rings are
notorious for being fragile in terms of things like sizing or otherwise
altering the ring, or repairing it later. Once invisibly set stones are set,
that's it. It becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to tighten a stone
that's worked loose, or to size a ring, or otherwise repair any damage. the
stones themselves prevent access to the metal that's holding them, so if it
becomes damaged, there's little way to get to it to fix it. And finally,
you cannot just do this to any stones you happen to have. Generally, well made
invisible set jewelry is precisely made first, and then all the stones are very
carefully selected to be exact fits for the mounting, and then need to be
specifically grooved to match the mounting. Manufacturers doing this generally
just have very large parcels of pre-grooved stones from which to carefully
select the precise sizes they need for a given piece. You will find that there
probably will not be any jewelers or setters willing to try and get your own
stones grooved. That's already a highly specialized diamond cutting task, not
normally done to a customers existing diamonds, and even if it were, it's
unlikely that they would be similar enough in size and shape to work well in
such a setting style. Keep in mind that most invisible set jewelry needs the
stones to match.

My customer Swarowski is cutting Zirkonia especially for invisible
setting in casting process.
If he tells his dimanond cutter, what he want to do, He will recut his
stones normally without problems.

Varied sizes or graduated sizes are almost impossible to work
with in a secure manner.

So with all that said and done, i'd suggest in strongest terms, that you think
in terms of a minimum of metal showing, rather than no metal showing. You
gotta have something there to hold them.

Peter

Thanks for Your honest advices here. The next question will be: I want
to fly to the moon who might give me any simple advice? :-)

Best wishes,
Heinrich Butschal

--
www.juwelen.online-boerse.org
www.meister-atelier.de
www.schmuckfabrik.de
www.medico.butschal.de

Although the precision of the wording of the vision for the diamond
ring may not have been exact, your explanation and generosity have
given me fuel for thought. The impression will be 'paved' as you
kindly suggested, and wonder now if the various sizes of the tiny gems
will cause concern. The setting I will likely now leave in the hands
of the jeweller.

Given time, I can carve a nice shape, and ask if you have suggestions
of what I might use to shape the mold from which the jeweller can cast
the base for the ring.

Not quite as daunting as one with no flight training wanting to go to
the moon, it has nonetheless been done, because someone wanted it to;
I won't suggest that the advice I ask is simple. ;|

L

Heinrich Butschal wrote in message
. ..
Peter W. Rowe wrote:

Hall Peter,
some more Information to that process:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:33:25 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry
(Lush) wrote:


It will contain over a hundred diamonds,
convering the ring - with no metal showing, only the gems -


You'll need to start by refining just what you mean by 'no metal showing".
You've got to hold the stones into the ring with something, and normally that
means at least a little bit of metal over the girdle (edges) of each stone,
preferably in at least three spots, though some setting styles do it with only
two such spots. Now, this need not be a lot of metal. One popular and very
pretty method of setting is called pave' setting, which when well done, looks
like the surface is indeed paved with stones. Close examination, however,
shows that the small spaces between stones (if you group lots of round stones
as close together as you can, there will still be small , usually triangular,
spaces between then at various intervals around the stone. are formed into
small beads, or hemispherical masses of metal that extend slightly over the
girdles. These beads serve to clamp the stones down into their seats. They
are actually sitting in very closely fitted holes, with their girdles basically
flush with the surface of the metal, except for those beads holding them down
in the surface. The stones usually don't extend absolutely to the outside edge
of a shape, and the last little edge is left as metal, usually trimmed to a
bright cut line, accenting the shape of the metal form, rather than each stone.
Stones can also be set just flush into a surface, rather than with beads, but
then there needs to be a continuous rim of metal, even if very small, around
the whole stone, so in effect, a web of metal seperates all the stones from
each other. that 'web is metal that's slightly wider at it's outer surface,
due to having been burnished down after the stones were placed in their holes,
and this then forms the structure that holds the stones into the metal.

A descrption is here.
http://www.butschal.de/werkstatt/seminar/kapitel7.htm

You may have seen so-called invisible setting, and may be trying for this look.
the name imples no metal holding the stones, but this is not actually the case.
it's done by cutting horizontal grooves into the pavilions of the stones just
below the girdle, and then the metal that holds the stones into the ring is
burnished into those grooves, instead of over the girdle. The trouble with
this type of setting are several.. First of all, it's quite difficult to do,
and many jewelers won't attempt it at all. Second, invisibly set rings are
notorious for being fragile in terms of things like sizing or otherwise
altering the ring, or repairing it later. Once invisibly set stones are set,
that's it. It becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to tighten a stone
that's worked loose, or to size a ring, or otherwise repair any damage. the
stones themselves prevent access to the metal that's holding them, so if it
becomes damaged, there's little way to get to it to fix it. And finally,
you cannot just do this to any stones you happen to have. Generally, well made
invisible set jewelry is precisely made first, and then all the stones are very
carefully selected to be exact fits for the mounting, and then need to be
specifically grooved to match the mounting. Manufacturers doing this generally
just have very large parcels of pre-grooved stones from which to carefully
select the precise sizes they need for a given piece. You will find that there
probably will not be any jewelers or setters willing to try and get your own
stones grooved. That's already a highly specialized diamond cutting task, not
normally done to a customers existing diamonds, and even if it were, it's
unlikely that they would be similar enough in size and shape to work well in
such a setting style. Keep in mind that most invisible set jewelry needs the
stones to match.

My customer Swarowski is cutting Zirkonia especially for invisible
setting in casting process.
If he tells his dimanond cutter, what he want to do, He will recut his
stones normally without problems.

Varied sizes or graduated sizes are almost impossible to work
with in a secure manner.

So with all that said and done, i'd suggest in strongest terms, that you think
in terms of a minimum of metal showing, rather than no metal showing. You
gotta have something there to hold them.

Peter

Thanks for Your honest advices here. The next question will be: I want
to fly to the moon who might give me any simple advice? :-)

Best wishes,
Heinrich Butschal

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:17:50 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry
(Lush) wrote:

Although the precision of the wording of the vision for the diamond
ring may not have been exact, your explanation and generosity have
given me fuel for thought. The impression will be 'paved' as you
kindly suggested, and wonder now if the various sizes of the tiny gems
will cause concern. The setting I will likely now leave in the hands
of the jeweller.

Since the shape you describe sounds as though the width, etc, of the various
surfaces will be varying, it should be quite possible to lay out an arrangment
of stones with varying sizes. In some cases, this actually works to the
advantage of the design, while in others, it can slightly increase the amount
of exposed metal. I wouldn't worry too much about that latter aspect, however.
If the setting is well done, it will look like a single homgeneous surface with
mostly the appearance of the diamonds, rather than obvious areas of metal. The
small bits of metal used to hold the stones in (called beads) generally blend
in quite well with the stones.


Given time, I can carve a nice shape, and ask if you have suggestions
of what I might use to shape the mold from which the jeweller can cast
the base for the ring.

Any decent jewelry tools supplier can sell you any of various types of
modelling wax made just for this purpose. Probably the type you'll need is one
of the harder (rigid rather than soft and pliable) types made to be carved with
files or rotary burs, engraving tools, etc. The most common tools used for the
bulk of the shaping is ordinary files, usually in a reasonably coarse grade.
The wax itself comes in several brands. Ferris "file a wax" is one of the most
common, a similar product called "Matt" carving wax is also common, and there
are a few other suppliers of similr waxes. You can buy it in solid blocks or
slices, or in extruded tube and bar forms. The tubes, in particular, are
intended for modelling rings, since by slicing off a section of the wax tube,
you're half way to the basic shape, at least in terms of having a block of wax
already with a starting size hole in it. You enlarge the hole until it's the
correct finger size for the ring, and then start filing away on the outside
until the form is what you wish.

The same suppliers that would carry the wax itself, can also sell you
specialized carvers, files, and other such tools to make the process easier,
though it's quite possible to do a lot with ordinary household type files,
especially if you've got a reasonably coarse (******* cut) hand file for
roughing, (especially if it's a half round shape, which can be of great help
sometimes) and perhaps a set of cheap, hopefully somewhat coarse cut, needle
files or similar smaller files. Additional useful tools are easily found,
including small hobby knives or home made scraping tools that can be used to
carve the wax.

Those same suppliers can also sell you any of several books that might more
fully detail the process of carving a wax model, as well as describing the
process of then casting the wax model into gold or platinum, or whatever you're
intending to make the ring out of. Another useful resource might be to locate
a local community college, adult education program, or arts/crafts center, or
other such local place where public classes in jewelry work might be taught.
Such a class, if well done, might make the whole process much clearer and more
effective for you.

Concentrate mostly on the overall shape and weight/thickness of the model,
rather than the exact placement of the stones. When the model is cast into
metal, there can be a bit of shrinkage, and as well, cleaning up and polishing
the casting also can change dimensions a little. So leave the drilling and
layout of the stones until after the ring is cast into metal. Some wax
workers will place diamonds or other stones in a model by heating them slightly
to let them melt down into the wax. I rather strongly don't recommend this.
it's quite hard to get the placement perfectly this way, and especially for a
beginner, there is a strong tendancy when doing this, to sink the stones too
deep, actually removing some of the metal that is vital to the actual stone
setting step, making the job of the stone setting a LOT more difficult. I've
seen a lot of cast rings who's models were made by professionals that are a
good deal harder to set than they would have been if the wax worker had left
well enough along, and left more metal there by not sinking the stones down
into the wax. And these are from professionals, but they aren't the ones doing
the setting itself (or they'd have known better). For good pave work, the end
metal usually needs to be at least about a millimeter, and preferably, a little
bit more, in thickness. Since some thickness is lost in the casting and
cleanup process, make the wax slightly thicker than this, but be aware that wax
looks thinner and more fragile that it will be in metal. A common beginner
mistake is to make a model they think is fine, which once cast in metal is
obviously MUCH thicker and heavier than was intended.

One other thing to keep in mind is that jewelry making is art, more than
precision scientific engineering. What I mean by that is that there are fewer
wrong ways, and more right ways, to do it. You, the designer, are quite free
to design something that you'll like that some other designer mignt not, and
you're free to work out your own means to make the piece, even if it's not how
others might do it. So this is considerably simpler than that trip to the
moon, where disagreements with the engineers can be very serious. Here, if it
seems to work for you, go for it, either in the design sense, or the mechanics
of working the material. Wax work, in particular, is very well suited to
innovation and personal favorite methods. If you ask in this forum how a
certain thing is done, you'll often get a wide variety of answers, each of
which is correct for some people and not for others. You can pick and choose.

Feel free to ask, as you go along, for additional pointers.

Peter Rowe

As resources are slim in my sparsely populated area, your stellar
advice has me going in the right direction. (Very unfortunately,
classes would take me about 12 hours from here.) I'll 'google' the wax
and carving tools as I continue to collect the diamonds and other gems
over the course of the year.

It's nice to know that the mold can be formed without heavy
consideration of where the gems might be placed. Here is what I hope
you can answer briefly if you have a minute, as you have already given
this project so much of your time:

I've been keeping my eye open for carved or molded surfaces from which
I either might duplicate its pattern - by replicating it with a
carving, or by taking a mold of it. (Ceramics, glass, etc.) Here's
the question - With the softer waxes you described, is it possible to
carefully place the wax directly on the surface of the desired form
(perhaps with the help of a very thin layer of lubricant or petroleum
jelly -- and a bit of heat), then carefully work it into the harder
wax that forms the circular part of the ring itself? Or is the wax
typically too course?

Very best, L

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 19:01:10 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry
(Lush) wrote:

As resources are slim in my sparsely populated area, your stellar
advice has me going in the right direction. (Very unfortunately,
classes would take me about 12 hours from here.) I'll 'google' the wax
and carving tools as I continue to collect the diamonds and other gems
over the course of the year.

Some sources: Gesswein (www.gesswein.com), Contenti (www.contenti.com), Rio
Grand (www.riogrande.com) The first two have tools and supplies online. Rio
has a very extensive selection, but you'll have to request catalogs.
personally, I think they're worth the small charge they ask, as their catalogs
are lavishly produced, informative, and rather larger than you'll expect.


It's nice to know that the mold can be formed without heavy
consideration of where the gems might be placed.

Do at least make sure the model will roughly accomodate the stones. Do that by
simply seeing if you can place the stones upside down on the wax surface, just
sitting in positon on the top, not overlapping each other, without much space
between, and without hanging over the edge of the wax (they should leave a
small border, actually) You can stick them to the wax with a soft sticky wax
(red utility wax is the name of one that works well) if your model is hard
carving wax, or often just a bit of saliva will hold them in place well enough
to see if they'll be likely to work out.

Here is what I hope
you can answer briefly if you have a minute, as you have already given
this project so much of your time:

I've been keeping my eye open for carved or molded surfaces from which
I either might duplicate its pattern - by replicating it with a
carving, or by taking a mold of it. (Ceramics, glass, etc.) Here's
the question - With the softer waxes you described, is it possible to
carefully place the wax directly on the surface of the desired form
(perhaps with the help of a very thin layer of lubricant or petroleum
jelly -- and a bit of heat), then carefully work it into the harder
wax that forms the circular part of the ring itself? Or is the wax
typically too course?

yes, you can comine waxes. You can simply melt literally any of the waxes,
including the hard carving waxes, onto surfaces that can take modest heat, or
with soft waxes, can press them down onto a surface and lift it off for an
impression. Petrolium jelly makes a fine seperating agent for this, as do
silicone sprays, or even a layer of saran wrap plastic wrap (for pressed on
wax. Not melted on.) Keep in mind that this gives you a reverse impression of
the surface, not a duplicate. To get a duplicate, you can make a plaster of
paris impression, coat THAT with vasoline, and take a wax impression of the
plaster. or for more complex shapes with undercuts, one can make actual formal
molds from almost anything using any of a number of rubber or silicone rubber,
or urathane (and a host of others) rubber modling products. The sources I
listed will show several types. For you, the various RTV (room temperature
vulcanizing) types are more practical than vulcanizing rubbers, which need more
equipment to make a mold.

soft waxes can be combined with harder waxes, but it can be tricky sometimes,
as they don't always adhere so well to each other without welding them with a
hot needle or something, and even that can take a little practice. In some
cases you can super glue two pieces of wax together. it won't be a strong
joint, but it doesn't need to be for the casting process. The model only needs
to have the right shape, whether that be a single piece of wax, or a glued and
stuck together assembly of several. In the process, the entire wax model is
simply melted away, and all that remains is a mold cavity with the shape of the
wax model. At that point, the cast metal doesn't care whether the model was
one piece of wax or several. Keep in mind, that what does reproduce well are
all the flaws and defects, scratches, marks, and the like, that are in the wax.
The better shaped your model, the better your casting will be in the end,
requiring less sanding and filing to clean it up. Rougher wax surfaces can
make that process more difficult, and will waste more metal, but that does not
have to stop you, so long as you plan for it, leaving enough wax so that after
casting, the roughness can be sanded and filed away. Roughness that consists
of bumps and projections in the wax are easily cleaned up in the casting. it's
dips, divits, holes, dings, file marks, and the like that cause more trouble,
since to remove than, one either needs to go to the work of soldering in or
welding in a patch, or one (and this is what's usually done) has to sand down
the entire surface until one has gotten to the bottom of the defect. That
results in greater loss of metal.

Hope that's of use

Peter

Very best, L

Thank you again, Peter. I'm in the right direction, and the project continues.
L



(Lush) wrote in message
. ..
As resources are slim in my sparsely populated area, your stellar
advice has me going in the right direction. (Very unfortunately,
classes would take me about 12 hours from here.) I'll 'google' the wax
and carving tools as I continue to collect the diamonds and other gems
over the course of the year.

It's nice to know that the mold can be formed without heavy
consideration of where the gems might be placed. Here is what I hope
you can answer briefly if you have a minute, as you have already given
this project so much of your time:

I've been keeping my eye open for carved or molded surfaces from which
I either might duplicate its pattern - by replicating it with a
carving, or by taking a mold of it. (Ceramics, glass, etc.) Here's
the question - With the softer waxes you described, is it possible to
carefully place the wax directly on the surface of the desired form
(perhaps with the help of a very thin layer of lubricant or petroleum
jelly -- and a bit of heat), then carefully work it into the harder
wax that forms the circular part of the ring itself? Or is the wax
typically too course?

Very best, L

"Peter W. Rowe"

Rio Grand (www.riogrande.com) The first two have tools and supplies
online. Rio
has a very extensive selection, but you'll have to request catalogs.
personally, I think they're worth the small charge they ask.............

$20 is hardly a "small charge" for a catalog. This is particularly
annoying because they have no catalog on-line. All you can buy is their
catalogs.

The good news is that if you call and use a little imagination, they will
send them to you for nothing. If you are not in the business, invent one.

Anyone who would pay $20 for a catalog would probably buy the Brooklyn
Bridge.

js


--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.netfirms.com/weekly.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Gems, Sausage, http://schmidling.netfirms.com

Imagination? It takes no imagination to have Rio Grande send you a
catalog. All you have to do is buy something from them. The $20 is to keep
moochers in their place. They send $20 in certificates with the catalog you
"buy" so that legitimate customers still get the catalog free. You ARE smart
enough to read the fine print aren't you?

--

Don Thompson

~~~~~~~~

"Jack Schmidling" wrote in message
...

"Peter W. Rowe"

Rio Grand (www.riogrande.com) The first two have tools and supplies
online. Rio
has a very extensive selection, but you'll have to request catalogs.
personally, I think they're worth the small charge they ask.............

$20 is hardly a "small charge" for a catalog. This is particularly
annoying because they have no catalog on-line. All you can buy is their
catalogs.

The good news is that if you call and use a little imagination, they will
send them to you for nothing. If you are not in the business, invent one.

Anyone who would pay $20 for a catalog would probably buy the Brooklyn
Bridge.

js


--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.netfirms.com/weekly.htm
Astronomy, Beer, Cheese, Gems, Sausage, http://schmidling.netfirms.com