Setting and Emerald

I am trying to set an 8 x 10 mm emerald cut into one of my hand forged
silver rings.

The idea is to drill a hole in the center of the ring head, hog out a hole
shaped like the bottom of the stone and hold it in with a bezel.

Hogging the hole is a bit of blind man's buff. A neat method of knowing
where to remove metal totally escapes me. After working with various burrs
for several hours, I have a near fit but there has got to be some simple
trick that I am missing. I tried painting the bottom of the stone and
inserting it while still wet to see paint marks but this does not work very
well for several reasons.

Any help on this would be much appreciated.

thanks,

js

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

Jack Schmidling wrote:
I am trying to set an 8 x 10 mm emerald cut into one of my hand forged
silver rings.

The idea is to drill a hole in the center of the ring head, hog out a hole
shaped like the bottom of the stone and hold it in with a bezel.

Hogging the hole is a bit of blind man's buff. A neat method of knowing
where to remove metal totally escapes me. After working with various burrs
for several hours, I have a near fit but there has got to be some simple
trick that I am missing. I tried painting the bottom of the stone and
inserting it while still wet to see paint marks but this does not work very
well for several reasons.

Any help on this would be much appreciated.

thanks,

js


Ink the stone and see where it transfers to the metal. Remove metal
there. Repeat as needed.

--RC

"Jack Schmidling" wrote in message
...


Hogging the hole is a bit of blind man's buff. A neat method of knowing
where to remove metal totally escapes me. After working with various
burrs
for several hours, I have a near fit but there has got to be some simple
trick that I am missing. I tried painting the bottom of the stone and
inserting it while still wet to see paint marks but this does not work
very
well for several reasons.

Almost invariably in work of this type the mistake beginners make is not to
thin the walls of the setting enough.

I know you're not a lover of the stone setter's 'scorper' but I'm afraid
it's time for those teeny tiny chisels to come out again...

You have to cut down from above to thin the walls.

Cutting balls mounted on a pendulum drill aren't nearly accurate or precise
enough, you'll cut right through the setting wall.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Jack Schmidling wrote:
I am trying to set an 8 x 10 mm emerald cut into one of my hand forged
silver rings.

The idea is to drill a hole in the center of the ring head, hog out a hole
shaped like the bottom of the stone and hold it in with a bezel.

Hogging the hole is a bit of blind man's buff. A neat method of knowing
where to remove metal totally escapes me. After working with various burrs
for several hours, I have a near fit but there has got to be some simple
trick that I am missing. I tried painting the bottom of the stone and
inserting it while still wet to see paint marks but this does not work very
well for several reasons.

Any help on this would be much appreciated.

thanks,

js

Im not really a stone person, but I do recall my mothers emerald
engagement ring.
the stone was 10mm by 7mm and was set in a rub over setting.
from what I recall there was a small shelf on which the edges of the
stone sat, and the rest of the metal under the stone was cut away so you
could see the underside side so to speak., if you looked inside the ring.
As weve not seen a picture of the ring youve cast its difficult to
visualise what youll need to do to make it easy for you to set and what
you need to do to get the stone sitting snugly in its setting.
If you plan to keep the metal behind the stone theres no need to worry
about takingout too much metal so long as youve a shelf to sit the stone
upon and enough room to put some green coloured foil onder it to improve
the colour and reflection.
Also emerals are relatively soft so you need to be careful what pressure
you give it to set the metal around it.
My 2 pence worth.
I guess Peter has the experience to help you more.
Let us have some pictures of the ring, stone and what your doing inside
the setting.
Ted.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:14:04 -0800, in àõ Ted Frater wrote:

Im not really a stone person,

chuckle... (see comments on the foil, below...)

and the rest of the metal under the stone was cut away so you
could see the underside side so to speak.

Called the pavilion, just for reference. And notice, no green foil...

...and enough room to put some green coloured foil onder it to improve
the colour and reflection.

Um. Ted? That would, in today's world, be considered rather deceptive. Was a common
practice in Cellini's time and in the 19th century and before, going way back,
actually. But modern gem cutting methods (facetted pavilions) reflect light pretty well
without needing foils, and faking a color on a gem valuable because of the color isn't,
these days, considered very "kosher". Just like dying, which infortunately, is still
common. You just won't see foiling done much any more. On antiques, often with rose
cut stones (flat back), yes, but not much work made after world war one. If
reflectivity is the issue, the inside of the setting can be(and often should be)
polished. No need for foils. And a good reason to have the back of the setting opened
up, rather than closed, is so it can be cleaned. A rubbed over setting, no matter how
tight, will still somehow allow dirt and grease to get to the back of the stone, messing
up the reflections. If the back is opened up, it can be easily cleaned.

Also emerals are relatively soft so you need to be careful what pressure
you give it to set the metal around it.

Not actually that soft. Emerald (beryl) is around 8 on the mohs scale. But most
emeralds are rather highly included, with flaws, fractures, and the like. Those,
coupled with a bit of inherent brittleness (different from softness), does indeed make
them pretty easy to chip. So you're right, care is needed.

Peter

"Ted Frater"

Let us have some pictures of the ring, stone and what your doing inside
the setting.


I was going to get out my new Digital Rebel but recalled that the relevant
photos are on my silver page. Jog down to the rings and you will see the
raw casting and then down to more rings and the emerald in the center is the
one I am re-working.

http://schmidling.com/silver.htm

For the record, this is not a real emerald. The one in the pic is a CZ
which I do not like so I cut a new one in YAG. This is what I am trying to
set into the original ring but it is deeper, hence my questions.

The green CZ is much too dark and only looks green in the proper lighting.
The YAG is a much better simulant for emerald.

Anyway, I got it to fit finally using acrylic paint on the pavilion which
left marks on the metal which was cut away with a round carbide burr. It
looks aweful in there but I guess its my secret but there has to be a better
way to make rectangular holes. I would also like to get away from the bezel
mount as I have trouble keeping it neat on a rectangular shape. The prong
setting on the far right ring came out very nice but it's a round stone and
so the hole is neat.

js


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