Soldering Works!

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:50:41 -0700, in Dô Jack Schmidling
wrote:

snip
The problem there is the gross misunderstanding of what I am trying to
do.

Suggesting a book called Goldsmithing and thinking I wanted to make a
chalice gave me little confidence in finding what I want without
thumbing
through the books.


it's less a misunderstanding than you think. While we may have missed
details of
just what you were making, the overall techniques are the same. The word
goldsmithing is generically used for almost all of the field of jewelry
making,
whether one is working in silver, gold, or platinum. A text on
goldsmithing
will tell you most of what you could wish. A possible exception would be
if you
wish to become skilled at classic silversmithing, that bit with all the
hammers
and stakes, raising larger hollow vessels from sheets of silver, bronze,
or what
ever. That's a bit more specialized, and there's a better book on that
class of
what's called silversmithing. But for jewelry work, whether you call it
metalsmithing or goldsmithing or jewelry making, we're talking about the
same
thing.

Yet again, I'd recommend Tim McCreights "complete metalsmith", especially
the
newest editions, as a general jewelry making text (widely used in college
art
school jewelry programs). And, as mentioned, the Brepohl book. Trust
me. What
you want, including stone setting, is in the latter tome...


Jack, I am certainly no jeweler, but a machinist who is rather interested in
the subject, and I'd have to agree with everyone who has weighed in on the
subject of the Brepohl. I'd be willing to bet that as an engineer you would
be truly fascinated by the stuff in that book. I checked it out from my
local library, and I think I read it straight through 3 times at least. I'm
sure you'll find a great deal of help on darn near any jewelry related topic
in it.

good luck man,

Gene

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:33:35 -0700, in =E0=07=F4 Marion Margoshes
wrote:

Peter, this trolling has been fun, but is it not enough ? Mari=
on
"Peter W.. R
owe," wrote in

me


Marion,

The thread has been on topic, at least as far as the jewelry making=
topic
goes.
So that's not trolling.

Some of the attitudes displayed by various posters, on both sides o=
f the
conversation, have been unfortunate, and as you might note in one r=
eply of
abrashas, I've not had to start intruding a bit. I hope that furth=
er such
edits
or posting rejections won't be needed.

If Jack (or any others) ask for advice on jewelry making, that's at=
the
root of
what this group was chartered to be about. Now, if he, or other be=
ginners
or
newbies, choose to "ask the experts", and then doesn't choose to bl=
indly
follow
every scrap of sacred adived doled out, that's his choice. and it =
still
is not
off topic or trolling.

Now if he, or anyone else, starts throwing angry responses around, =
they
better be
statements directly discussing the merits of some aspect of jewelry
making. If
they delve into aspects of various people's stubbornness or attitut=
ed or
percieved intellegence levels, or the like, they better do it nicel=
y.
Tensions
have indeed been getting to the "entertaining" level, and I can't l=
et it
get too
much higher. At this point, I've only needed to reject one post fr=
om one
poster,
and edit one of Abrashas (normally I either approve in whole, or re=
ject in
whole.
This single instance of editing was chosen to show the group that I=
'm
loosing
patience with the bickering. Mostly because it puts lil 'ol ME, in=
the
uncomfortable middle of the thing...

As to enough, well, see above. So long as the thread returns to be=
ing on
topic
and civil, it can continue forever, if desired. Anyone who's tired=
of it
can
stop responding to it. Simple enough.

Peter Rowe
moderator, rec.crafts.jewelry




Thank you, Peter. I felt that the person asking the advise had no in=
tension
of following anything, but was pretending to to keep the thread going=
, and
some serious metalsmiths took him seriouslyy. Marion

Jack Schmidling wrote:

The real problem is that I am a sucker for troll bait.

Not really, you're just inexperienced in the ways of
jewelry making.

Don't listen to these people!
They're only trying to confuse you.

Use bubblegum. Start with hard bubblegum, the kind
that hasn't been chewed too much. It requires no heat,
and your pieces can be reconfigured easily.

Softer bubblegum can be used for subsequent joints
if your piece is complex, but it tends to spread
away from the joint, requiring grinding.

People coming to jewelrymaking from industry
sometimes think that you can use Kraft fudgies,
but they contain corn syrup, and can become brittle
after a time, resulting in joint failure.

Never use epoxy. It tasts terrible.
--
m http://www.mbstevens.com/

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:18:53 -0700, in hô m
wrote:

People coming to jewelrymaking from industry
sometimes think that you can use Kraft fudgies,
but they contain corn syrup, and can become brittle
after a time, resulting in joint failure.

MBS, kraft fugdies also might melt in the sun...

Seriously, don't think it's only a joke. The local metalsmiths guild is just now
curating an upcoming show for which entrants made two pieces. One permanent, for
the display, and another, edible. At the reception, one is to wear the edible
piece, photos of which event are, I think, to be part of the show...

I didn't quite have time to put an entry together, but was planning on using the
food dehydrator. Run ground turkey through the food processor to get a more even
paste, use a Jerky press or other means to extrude the long strips that normally
one dries into strips of jerky, but instead, form them into oval links. After
they've dried, do it again, but this time with new links formed to connect the
previous set. Result is a chain of jerky. I'd planned on incorporating various
dried fruits, which can be made as rings (slices of cored apple, for example,
linked onto the jerky, and calling the piece "food chain"...

Not really serious jewelry, but considerable fun in any case, and if done with
enough forthought, can be brain stimulating. if not, but decent ingredients, at
least, nourishing...

Peter

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:18:49 -0700, in |ô Marion Margoshes
wrote:



Thank you, Peter. I felt that the person asking the advise had no in
tension of following anything, but was pretending to to keep the thread going
, and some serious metalsmiths took him seriouslyy. Marion

Many students in the arts have a tendancy to learn at their own pace, in their
own way. Jack asks questions, and selects from the answers that which meets his
needs. he's gotton a wide range of responses, only some of which address his
specific interest. While he ignores some of our advice, so do all students, at
times, and he's paying close attention to selected other bits. That's not
trolling. frustrating for the advise givers perhaps, but not trolling.

Peter

"Jack Schmidling" wrote in message
...

"William Black"

Usually the mount for a conventional round stone is a conic section made
by
forming it with a tool set in a die with the silver tube between them,
you
then belt it with a hammer and anneal....

Roger on that but what I am trying to do in minimize the height profile so
they don't look like pretty warts. I have drilled holes and used cut down
commercial heads and used a counter sink to form a conic hole but find
that
just selecting the right size hole puts the stone at the proper level.

I was under the impression that the stone could not touch anything much
without destroying the optics but I guess as long and it's not filled with
glue or some such thing it does not matter.

True, and hole right through the piece for the light to get through helps
as well.

Solder the bezel to whatever you're fitting it to, thin thesetting with
a
tool called a scorper until the stone fits neatly and snugly inside,
thin
the top edge, it should overtop the girdle of the stone by a little and
the
table should stand proud, from the inside, and push the edge over with
a
'pusher',...

You lost me. What is the scorper scorping?

Sorry, it's complicated, 'scorper' is the generic name for a range of
specialised gravers.used in stone setting.

They are used to cut the silver away so that the stone sits on a 'shoulder'
and also to remove surplus metal at teh top of the setting so as to allow it
to be bent over the stone.

There are flat scorpers, half round scorpers, bull nosed scorpers and so
on, all are used for different parts of the process, there are some
pictures of them in the current Cookson's catalogue. I know you're in the
USA, Cookson's is the major bullion dealer in the UK and sell a huge range
of stuff including specialised tools and findings. They're expensive
though.

As I've said before, this is a non trivial process....

I am a non-trivial person and respond well to detailed instructions.
Hopefully, the book on the way will help but I just do not see how setting
a
stone in a hunk of metal in anything close to rocket science. Not sausage
making either but certainly somewhere in between.

It's not rocket science, and if you use modern hi tech adhesives you can
just make a hole and put the stone in and clean up the setting, but it just
doesn't look right to me somehow.

What stone setting is in reality is a traditional craft skill that, like
most European traditional craft skills, is a series of simple processes that
are used in different sequences depending on the problem to be solved.

Like all the European craft skills you need specialised tools and the
ability to repeat a reasonably simple process with great accuracy, add the
right processes together in the right sequence and you should be able to
solve the problem.

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
At the reception, one is to wear the
edible piece, photos of which event are, I think, to be part of the
show...

Not really serious jewelry, but considerable fun in any case...

That's grand! A fine idea.

Jewelry made of the odd materials can also be
*dead* *serious*.

http://www.mbstevens.com/test/coatlique2.jpg

The necklace is being worn by Coatlique, an Aztec goddess.
It is made of the hands and hearts of sacrificial victims.
The pendant is a skull. The skirt is made of woven serpents.
(The sculpture was made IIRC, around 1000 AD. The Aztecs,
being barbarous and theocratic, had a nasty habit
of torturing prisoners to appease their gods.)
--
cheers, m

Theres no doubt youd have won the competition.


Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:18:53 -0700, in hô m
wrote:


People coming to jewelrymaking from industry
sometimes think that you can use Kraft fudgies,
but they contain corn syrup, and can become brittle
after a time, resulting in joint failure.


MBS, kraft fugdies also might melt in the sun...

Seriously, don't think it's only a joke. The local metalsmiths guild is just now
curating an upcoming show for which entrants made two pieces. One permanent, for
the display, and another, edible. At the reception, one is to wear the edible
piece, photos of which event are, I think, to be part of the show...

I didn't quite have time to put an entry together, but was planning on using the
food dehydrator. Run ground turkey through the food processor to get a more even
paste, use a Jerky press or other means to extrude the long strips that normally
one dries into strips of jerky, but instead, form them into oval links. After
they've dried, do it again, but this time with new links formed to connect the
previous set. Result is a chain of jerky. I'd planned on incorporating various
dried fruits, which can be made as rings (slices of cored apple, for example,
linked onto the jerky, and calling the piece "food chain"...

Not really serious jewelry, but considerable fun in any case, and if done with
enough forthought, can be brain stimulating. if not, but decent ingredients, at
least, nourishing...

Peter

On , in ôô "ted.ffrater" wrote:

Theres no doubt youd have won the competition.

it's an exhibition, not a competition, so everyone wins by partcipating. And
don't assume my little idea would be the best. Our local group includes some
exceptionally talented artists. i have no doubt that there will be very many
highly original pieces... And unlike me, they'll have found the time to actually
make them, instead of just thinking about it...

Peter

On , in ?? William Black wrote:

I was under the impression that the stone could not touch anything much
without destroying the optics but I guess as long and it's not filled with
glue or some such thing it does not matter.

True, and hole right through the piece for the light to get through helps
as well.

Well, yes and no, William and Jack. With a well cut stone, in order for the
optics of the stone to be affected, the contact has to be an optical one. That
means the air layer normally between solid surfaces must be excluded, and the
contacting material must actually "wet" the surface, or otherwise exclude the
air. So things like water, oils, dirt, grease, etc, on the back of a stone will
mess up the optics. But simply having the setting for the stone, even though in
contact with the stone, in contact with it seldom messes up anything. In most
well cut stones, the setting is not, or is only minimally, visible through the
stone, even though it's behind it. And with diamonds, or stones with higher
refractive indexes, the light you see coming from the stone was light that
generally entered from the top and has reflected. A hole behind the stone makes
little, if any difference to the appearance. The belief that it matters is a
hold over from old cut stones (old miners, rose cuts, and the like), where poor
optics meant you were seeing through the stone. It DOES make a difference in
the appearance with colored stones that have lower R.I., but even then, it's
often more a factor of just not having disturbing reflections or objects visible
behind the stone, since in most jewelry, light is not coming from behind and
underneath when the item is worn. Nevertheless, holes behind facetted stones is
still essential, but just not for light. it's so you can clean the things
properly. If you set a stone in a full bezel that's closed in back, rest assured
that soaps, oils, and other forms of dirt and scum will eventually find their way
through those tight seals to the back of the stone, but you'll have a heck of a
time cleaning them. If there's a hole, then cleaning is much easier. Also,
Jack, regarding contact with the stone. With white stones like diamonds, use of
yellow metal contacting the stone or behind it, can alter the appearance of the
stones color. But other than that, in general, metal contacting the stone as
part of the setting has no significant effect other than the fact that metal
holding the stone into the setting usually must cover a little of the stone at
the edge, and this simply hides a bit of the stone...

Peter