Advice on rub-over settings

I am looking for some advice concerning an engagement ring with a
rub-over setting, I hope this is an appropriate forum. As will
quickly become apparent I know zip about jewelry, so apologies in
advance.

Background: 4 years ago I bought an engagement ring for my (now) wife.
3 months ago the diamond fell out and was lost. I returned it to the
jewelers, to be told that this was due to 'wear and tear' and
therefore I was not entitled to a replacement under the terms of the 5
year gaurantee. I was told that because my wife wore it next to her
wedding ring, the rubbing would have loosened the setting. I was also
shown some close-up pictures of the setting showing damage (tiny
splinters) where the rub-over setting held the diamond in place. It
was suggested that this must have been caused whilst my wife was
wearing the ring.

If anyone could provide some insight to the followinge questions I
would be very grateful:

1. Is this engagement/wedding ring rubbing a known problem? Both are
18ct. there appears to be little visible abrasion, and the wedding
ring sits a good 2mm below the top of the (I'm sure it has a technical
term) bit that holds the diamond.

2. With a rub-over setting, should there be a lip around the entire
circumference of the top of the bit that holds the diamond? On my
wife's ring there is a visible (0.5mm) lip around only about one
third. It looks like the rest is missing to me.

3. How are rub-over setting made and are there any common defects that
may cause the setting to be weak?

4. Could this be wear and tear? We are confident that no damage was
caused by a single bang/knock, but roughly what sort of force would be
needed to damage a gold setting as suggested? NB my wife is not a
construction worker and doesn't operate heavy machinery ;)

Many thanks for your patience and help.

Bob

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:42:24 -0700, in Tô (Bob) wrote:

I am looking for some advice concerning an engagement ring with a
rub-over setting, I hope this is an appropriate forum. As will
quickly become apparent I know zip about jewelry, so apologies in
advance.

some comments. First, I'd have to note that it would be of considerable help if
you could post close up photos of the damage, as well as slightly less closeup
photos showing the whole rings, to the web (your ISP no doubt gives you a bit of
personal web space which is perfect for this, or there are public web sites that
allow you, often for free, to host images on their sites), and then in a
newsgroup posting, include the URLs to those images. It would make it much
easier for us to discuss the problem with some actual knowledge, rather than
educated guesses. I'd note along this line that just posting the images as
attachments to the newsgroup post unfortunately isn't allowed by this groups
charter, and I have to post such posts without the attachments.
With that said...


Background: 4 years ago I bought an engagement ring for my (now) wife.
3 months ago the diamond fell out and was lost. I returned it to the
jewelers, to be told that this was due to 'wear and tear' and
therefore I was not entitled to a replacement under the terms of the 5
year gaurantee. I was told that because my wife wore it next to her
wedding ring, the rubbing would have loosened the setting. I was also
shown some close-up pictures of the setting showing damage (tiny
splinters) where the rub-over setting held the diamond in place. It
was suggested that this must have been caused whilst my wife was
wearing the ring.


Your description suggests a setting style more commonly called a bezel, which is
a full rim, either thin or wide, around the stone. "rub over" is also sometimes
used to describe what's more traditionally called a "gypsy" setting, in which the
diamond is set flush down into a wider surface. That style, if done right, is
not likely to wear out in the time frame you describe, because the stone is sunk
down into a wider surface. So I'll assume you have/had a bezel setting, and the
diamond was lost when enough of the rim holding the stone in, wore away.
Normal wear on the gold will indeed abrade the metal away. four years is not
unduly quick for an 18K YELLOW gold bezel, if it's a lighter weight, thinner one.
that's one unfortunate difference between yellow and white golds, or even more
between any gold alloys and platinum (which lasts MUCH longer) However, as a
designer, I'd be sceptical of an engagement ring design, which clearly is
intended for continuous wear over an extended time, which is not designed with
some concern for reasonable longevity. If it is not designed heavily enough for
long term wear, then at least the store should have made clear the need for you
to have the setting checked by the store on a reasonable schedule, so the setting
could be rebuilt or replaced if it wore down to the point where the durability
could be in question. Many stores suggest this type of preventative maintenance
in all their jewelry sales. Usually, such cleaning and checking of the jewelry
is free, and may even include a bit of touch up polishing. Stones get checked
that they're still tight, the ring ends up looking great, and in the event
repairs are needed, they can be offered before there's the major financial loss
of a lost stone. Expecting consumers to see the need on their own doesn't work,
since the wear takes place slowly, and the ring always looks just as it did the
day before, until the stone falls out, with the wearing down occuring so slowly
that it goes unnoticed by the owner. But to the jeweler, trained to look for it,
it's obvious at a glance.

I'd also comment on your 5 year warranty. You might wish to read the warranty
carefully, but most stores that guarantee their jewelry, as with most guarantees
of other consumer products, promise againts defects in manufacturing beyond
normal wear and tear. To guard against accident, or the type of loss you
sustained, it's usual to suggest that people include their jewelry on their
homeowners or renters property insurance. It usually requres a seperate rider
to your policy, obtained by use of an appraisal, which may or may not have been
supplied with the sale of the ring. You may wish to check with your insurance
company even if you did not have such a rider, since often there will be at least
some coverage.

Now, to the description of the damage to the ring. It's common for a wedding
band and engagement ring to rub against each other, and common for this to result
is wearing down of the metal where they contact. I'm skeptical, however, of the
statement that the stone was lost as a result, since you state the wedding band
sits below the stone setting. The rubbing abrades metal slowly, but normally
doesn't bend it or move it. Just thins it out. My guess, from what I imagine
happened, is that the wedding band had nothing to do with the loss, but that
normal wear and abrasion to the ring simply wore down the thickness of the rim
holding the stone in, until only a thin foil was left. This type of wear is
quite common with bezels, and occurs at a rate determined by the original
thickness of the bezel edge, and the type of metal, the height off the finger of
the bezel, the width of the bezel edge, and similar factors. Similar wear and
tear also occurs with other types of settings, but the continuous rim of the
bezel actually makes it possible for such settings to hold a diamond securely
well beyond the point of wear that would have been dangerous for prongs. Still,
once it gets thin enough, that thing foil like layer no longer is strong enough,
and any shock or pressure to the stone can then shift it, bending or tearing the
remaining bezle edge. What remains once the stone has been forced out, can
resemble splinters...

But there are other possibilities that are impossible to guess at. I cannot
know, for example, whether there was faulty workmanship in the original setting
job that contributed to the loss. When one sets a stone in a bezel, the first
step is tu cut/grind a seat, a small ledge in the inside wall of the bezel, on
which the stone sits. The metal projecting above that seat is then forced down,
by burnishing (rubbing) or hammering, to hold the stone. If, when the seat is
cut, it's made too large, or not correctly fitted closely to the stone, it's
possible that it creates an undercut inside the bezel wall. Once set, the metal
looks strong, but there can be a gap under the metal between the stone's edge and
the metal where there is that undercut. the stone is held tight by the inner
edge of the bezle, but just to the outside of that inner lip, it's not then held.
The effect of this is that the stone is much easier to loosen, and when the bezel
wears down, it might appear to be still reasonably thick enough to hold the
stone, when in fact, it's almost worn through to the point of that gap or
undercut in the seat. This can cause the stone to be lost prematurely. But I'd
need a good, magnified image of the setting to be able to see that. I doubt even
a good macro lens can create that photo. You'd need to be shooting through a
microscope or magnifier to see whether that seems to be the case, and without the
stone, even then it might by tricky to diagnose at this point, depending on how
much of the original bezel is still left. If this indeed is the reason the stone
was lost, then you'd have a valid argument for replacement under the warranty.
But don't just assume this to be the case, since as i said, a yellow gold bezel,
even well set and of suitable thickness, could easily be worn down in a four year
time span, if not suitably monitored with periodic checks by a qualified jeweler.

If anyone could provide some insight to the followinge questions I
would be very grateful:

1. Is this engagement/wedding ring rubbing a known problem? Both are
18ct. there appears to be little visible abrasion, and the wedding
ring sits a good 2mm below the top of the (I'm sure it has a technical
term) bit that holds the diamond.

Sure. they rub together. But if the rubbing did not cut through parts that
structurally held the bezel in position or together, and you should be able to
see that if it did, then it's likely that the abrasion from the wedding band had
little effect on the engagement ring. But that's just an educated guess. I'd
have to see the design to know that for sure.


2. With a rub-over setting, should there be a lip around the entire
circumference of the top of the bit that holds the diamond? On my
wife's ring there is a visible (0.5mm) lip around only about one
third. It looks like the rest is missing to me.

There are several styles of bezel. A full bezel is a complete rim, all around
the stone. if that rim is still all there, then there's very little way a
properly set stone could ever come out. The fact that you say only about a third
is now there is consistant with the stone being now gone. There are also setting
styles that use partial bezels, such as two C shaped arcs, opposing each other,
with a gap on top and the sides and perhaps underneath, with the stone suspended
between these arcs, and the top edges of those arcs the formed the same way as a
full complete bezel would be. But that doesn't sound like what you've got.

By the way, a half millimeter is actually still a fair thickness of metal. if
what remains is a half millimeter THICK, rather than simply extending a half
millimeter over the stone but is only foil thick, then I'd wonder why such a
thick layer of metal was able to peel away. That's the sort of situation that
makes me wonder about poorly cut/undercut seats when the stone was set.


3. How are rub-over setting made and are there any common defects that
may cause the setting to be weak?

there are many ways these can be made. They can be cast or hand fabricated, or
die struck, depending on the type and style. Normally they are simply a tube or
tapered conical section of metal. to set the stone, an inner rim is cut into the
inside top edge until the stone sits down onto that seat, with a bit of the mtal
extending visibly above the stone's edge. That edge is then rubbed or hammered
down, which forces it over the stone, locking it in place. If the bezel is made
of too thin stock, or not enough metal is forced down over the stone, or the
finsihed bezel is overly polished (which removes metal), or simply wears down
thinning that top part that's been worked over the stone to hold it, then the
setting can be no longer secure.


4. Could this be wear and tear? We are confident that no damage was
caused by a single bang/knock, but roughly what sort of force would be
needed to damage a gold setting as suggested? NB my wife is not a
construction worker and doesn't operate heavy machinery ;)


One of the problems is that in order to make jewelry, goldsmiths need a metal
that can be worked, often with hand tools. That means that in general, we use
metals that are a bit soft and flexible. Gold, especially yellow gold in higher
karats (like 18K) is wonderfully malleable and soft to work with. But the
flipside is that normal wear and tear will also wear it down. Consider: You put
brake pads in your car. They're manufacured of materials softer than the brake
disks, and obviously wear down and need replacing. But the steel disks also wear
down, and eventually need replacing. Often the degree of wear on the disks is
many millimeters over time, and that may be only a few years. Although the
forces on brakes to stop a car are high, they are still only occasional, with
most of the time your car either just driving, or even more often, just sitting
parked somewhere. yet that highly durable and strong steel is abraded away by
the softer brake pads, and we accept that as normal and usual. yet the same
person who accepts that in their car, will put a ring on their finger, never take
it off, and expect it to last forever because there's this public perception that
precious metals, being resistant to corrosion and able to last centuries in a
museum, should somehow not wear in use either. Normal wear, even by gentle
people who abuse nothing, involves friction. Even if only with clothing.
There's house dust, and similar abrasives all around us, not to mention kitchen
sinks (ceramic) and who knows what all else. House dust is largely minerals,
harder than golds, and able to slowly abrade it So gold wears down. But the
change occurs slowly enough that owners just don't realize it's happening.

As to the non-construction worker thing, I recall one customer, a cute little
lady who must have weighed less than a hundred pounds, stood barely five feet
tall, and didn't have to work for a living. Took great care of her hands, never
did anything, she thought, that would damage her jewelry. Yet every time I saw
her jewelry, the prongs on her rings were all bent up, and the rings were often
all bent out of round too. She had no clue how it all happened. After talking
about this for a while, her husband noted a couple things... She tended to sleep
on her stomach, and often, it seems, was in the habit of sort of slipping her
hand over the side of the mattress, putting it between the matress and the box
spring. And he also noted that she tended to be a nervous driver, commonly
tapping her hands on the steering wheel, often in time to some music on the
radio. And so it went. Even simply little actions like that can easily put
forces on soft metals that can, over time, deform them significantly. It's easy
to say your wife never abused her jewelry or did heavy work. But she's alive and
uses her hands in all sorts of ordinary every day tasks, from getting dressed in
the morning, working in the kitchen, reaching in and out of pockets and pocket
books, and who knows what all else. All these things can put stress on jewelry,
and in some cases, cause damage.

There's no way, without really seeing the rings, for us to really tell you why
the damage occured. It may well be the store is entirely correct. Even if their
diagnosis of why it occured (the wedding ring rubbing) might not be right, it's
still quite possible that this was just normal wear and tear, due to you're not
having the ring checked now and then to be sure it was still secure. Or, perhaps
it was indeed a faulty setting.

I'd suggest that you take the ring to another, impartial, goldsmith and ask him
or her for an opinion. Since the store you bought it from obvious has an
interest in denying responsibility, someone without the liability hanging over
their head is more likely to give you an honest opinion.

Hope that's of use.

Peter


Many thanks for your patience and help.

Bob

Many thanks for all the info. Peter. I need some time to understand
everything you have said, but have tried to address some of your
points:

Photos:
I have had a go at some photos with my digital camera, unfortunately
the results aren't very useful! The Manufacturer took some photos as
part of their initial report, I have asked the jeweler to send me a
copy of these.

Checking:
I do not recall being asked to bring the ring back to be checked on a
regular basis, when I purchased it. If four years is a reasonable
timeframe for normal wear and tear to result in the diamond becoming
dislodged, I would certainly have liked to have been informed of this
when I purchased it. With a five year guarantee I (perhaps naively)
assumed that with normal wear the ring could be expected to at least
last the duration of the guarantee.

Lets say that I took the ring back last year and they said "oh, the
rim is a bit thin, it needs replacing", this presumably would have
been wear and tear and not covered under the guarantee? I would have
had to have paid to have this done (not cheap?), and again 3 years
later, and then 3 years after that etc etc. This was most definitely
not pointed out to me when I purchased it!

Bezel:
I believe it was a full bezel. You are right, the rim extends 1/2 mm
over the stone. In terms of thickness it is a very thin layer
(perhaps 0.1mm)

Insurance:
Yes I have insurance. I could claim on this, however why should the
insurance company pay out when the ring is under gaurantee? This will
cost me an excess, count against me when I renew, raise premiums for
everyone else.. And so it goes on. Gaurantees are there to
guarantee, not just to help sell a product. IMHO when it comes down
to it guarantees, extended warranties, specialist insurance etc are
usually not worth the paper they are written on. Maybe it's just me,
but I find this borders on the dishonest.

Rubbing:
I agree that the rubbing theory is probably a red herring.

Second Opinion:
Yes, I am taking the ring to another jewelers today.

I have to say that I find this all very disheartening. I freely admit
to previously believing that these items were made to last a last-time
(or an ‘eternity', if you like), a perception readily promoted by
those who sell them, you must agree. If one knew the risks you just
described you perhaps wouldn't choose to have your wife permanently
walk around with $3000 on her finger (and I hope she's not reading
this ;).

Many thanks again Peter

Bob

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:42:24 -0700, in T ô (Bob) wrote:

I am looking for some advice concerning an engagement ring with a
rub-over setting, I hope this is an appropriate forum. As will
quickly become apparent I know zip about jewelry, so apologies in
advance.

some comments. First, I'd have to note that it would be of considerable help if
you could post close up photos of the damage, as well as slightly less closeup
photos showing the whole rings, to the web (your ISP no doubt gives you a bit of
personal web space which is perfect for this, or there are public web sites that
allow you, often for free, to host images on their sites), and then in a
newsgroup posting, include the URLs to those images. It would make it much
easier for us to discuss the problem with some actual knowledge, rather than
educated guesses. I'd note along this line that just posting the images as
attachments to the newsgroup post unfortunately isn't allowed by this groups
charter, and I have to post such posts without the attachments.
With that said...


Background: 4 years ago I bought an engagement ring for my (now) wife.
3 months ago the diamond fell out and was lost. I returned it to the
jewelers, to be told that this was due to 'wear and tear' and
therefore I was not entitled to a replacement under the terms of the 5
year gaurantee. I was told that because my wife wore it next to her
wedding ring, the rubbing would have loosened the setting. I was also
shown some close-up pictures of the setting showing damage (tiny
splinters) where the rub-over setting held the diamond in place. It
was suggested that this must have been caused whilst my wife was
wearing the ring.


Your description suggests a setting style more commonly called a bezel, which is
a full rim, either thin or wide, around the stone. "rub over" is also sometimes
used to describe what's more traditionally called a "gypsy" setting, in which the
diamond is set flush down into a wider surface. That style, if done right, is
not likely to wear out in the time frame you describe, because the stone is sunk
down into a wider surface. So I'll assume you have/had a bezel setting, and the
diamond was lost when enough of the rim holding the stone in, wore away.
Normal wear on the gold will indeed abrade the metal away. four years is not
unduly quick for an 18K YELLOW gold bezel, if it's a lighter weight, thinner one.
that's one unfortunate difference between yellow and white golds, or even more
between any gold alloys and platinum (which lasts MUCH longer) However, as a
designer, I'd be sceptical of an engagement ring design, which clearly is
intended for continuous wear over an extended time, which is not designed with
some concern for reasonable longevity. If it is not designed heavily enough for
long term wear, then at least the store should have made clear the need for you
to have the setting checked by the store on a reasonable schedule, so the setting
could be rebuilt or replaced if it wore down to the point where the durability
could be in question. Many stores suggest this type of preventative maintenance
in all their jewelry sales. Usually, such cleaning and checking of the jewelry
is free, and may even include a bit of touch up polishing. Stones get checked
that they're still tight, the ring ends up looking great, and in the event
repairs are needed, they can be offered before there's the major financial loss
of a lost stone. Expecting consumers to see the need on their own doesn't work,
since the wear takes place slowly, and the ring always looks just as it did the
day before, until the stone falls out, with the wearing down occuring so slowly
that it goes unnoticed by the owner. But to the jeweler, trained to look for it,
it's obvious at a glance.

I'd also comment on your 5 year warranty. You might wish to read the warranty
carefully, but most stores that guarantee their jewelry, as with most guarantees
of other consumer products, promise againts defects in manufacturing beyond
normal wear and tear. To guard against accident, or the type of loss you
sustained, it's usual to suggest that people include their jewelry on their
homeowners or renters property insurance. It usually requres a seperate rider
to your policy, obtained by use of an appraisal, which may or may not have been
supplied with the sale of the ring. You may wish to check with your insurance
company even if you did not have such a rider, since often there will be at least
some coverage.

Now, to the description of the damage to the ring. It's common for a wedding
band and engagement ring to rub against each other, and common for this to result
is wearing down of the metal where they contact. I'm skeptical, however, of the
statement that the stone was lost as a result, since you state the wedding band
sits below the stone setting. The rubbing abrades metal slowly, but normally
doesn't bend it or move it. Just thins it out. My guess, from what I imagine
happened, is that the wedding band had nothing to do with the loss, but that
normal wear and abrasion to the ring simply wore down the thickness of the rim
holding the stone in, until only a thin foil was left. This type of wear is
quite common with bezels, and occurs at a rate determined by the original
thickness of the bezel edge, and the type of metal, the height off the finger of
the bezel, the width of the bezel edge, and similar factors. Similar wear and
tear also occurs with other types of settings, but the continuous rim of the
bezel actually makes it possible for such settings to hold a diamond securely
well beyond the point of wear that would have been dangerous for prongs. Still,
once it gets thin enough, that thing foil like layer no longer is strong enough,
and any shock or pressure to the stone can then shift it, bending or tearing the
remaining bezle edge. What remains once the stone has been forced out, can
resemble splinters...

But there are other possibilities that are impossible to guess at. I cannot
know, for example, whether there was faulty workmanship in the original setting
job that contributed to the loss. When one sets a stone in a bezel, the first
step is tu cut/grind a seat, a small ledge in the inside wall of the bezel, on
which the stone sits. The metal projecting above that seat is then forced down,
by burnishing (rubbing) or hammering, to hold the stone. If, when the seat is
cut, it's made too large, or not correctly fitted closely to the stone, it's
possible that it creates an undercut inside the bezel wall. Once set, the metal
looks strong, but there can be a gap under the metal between the stone's edge and
the metal where there is that undercut. the stone is held tight by the inner
edge of the bezle, but just to the outside of that inner lip, it's not then held.
The effect of this is that the stone is much easier to loosen, and when the bezel
wears down, it might appear to be still reasonably thick enough to hold the
stone, when in fact, it's almost worn through to the point of that gap or
undercut in the seat. This can cause the stone to be lost prematurely. But I'd
need a good, magnified image of the setting to be able to see that. I doubt even
a good macro lens can create that photo. You'd need to be shooting through a
microscope or magnifier to see whether that seems to be the case, and without the
stone, even then it might by tricky to diagnose at this point, depending on how
much of the original bezel is still left. If this indeed is the reason the stone
was lost, then you'd have a valid argument for replacement under the warranty.
But don't just assume this to be the case, since as i said, a yellow gold bezel,
even well set and of suitable thickness, could easily be worn down in a four year
time span, if not suitably monitored with periodic checks by a qualified jeweler.

If anyone could provide some insight to the followinge questions I
would be very grateful:

1. Is this engagement/wedding ring rubbing a known problem? Both are
18ct. there appears to be little visible abrasion, and the wedding
ring sits a good 2mm below the top of the (I'm sure it has a technical
term) bit that holds the diamond.

Sure. they rub together. But if the rubbing did not cut through parts that
structurally held the bezel in position or together, and you should be able to
see that if it did, then it's likely that the abrasion from the wedding band had
little effect on the engagement ring. But that's just an educated guess. I'd
have to see the design to know that for sure.


2. With a rub-over setting, should there be a lip around the entire
circumference of the top of the bit that holds the diamond? On my
wife's ring there is a visible (0.5mm) lip around only about one
third. It looks like the rest is missing to me.

There are several styles of bezel. A full bezel is a complete rim, all around
the stone. if that rim is still all there, then there's very little way a
properly set stone could ever come out. The fact that you say only about a third
is now there is consistant with the stone being now gone. There are also setting
styles that use partial bezels, such as two C shaped arcs, opposing each other,
with a gap on top and the sides and perhaps underneath, with the stone suspended
between these arcs, and the top edges of those arcs the formed the same way as a
full complete bezel would be. But that doesn't sound like what you've got.

By the way, a half millimeter is actually still a fair thickness of metal. if
what remains is a half millimeter THICK, rather than simply extending a half
millimeter over the stone but is only foil thick, then I'd wonder why such a
thick layer of metal was able to peel away. That's the sort of situation that
makes me wonder about poorly cut/undercut seats when the stone was set.


3. How are rub-over setting made and are there any common defects that
may cause the setting to be weak?

there are many ways these can be made. They can be cast or hand fabricated, or
die struck, depending on the type and style. Normally they are simply a tube or
tapered conical section of metal. to set the stone, an inner rim is cut into the
inside top edge until the stone sits down onto that seat, with a bit of the mtal
extending visibly above the stone's edge. That edge is then rubbed or hammered
down, which forces it over the stone, locking it in place. If the bezel is made
of too thin stock, or not enough metal is forced down over the stone, or the
finsihed bezel is overly polished (which removes metal), or simply wears down
thinning that top part that's been worked over the stone to hold it, then the
setting can be no longer secure.


4. Could this be wear and tear? We are confident that no damage was
caused by a single bang/knock, but roughly what sort of force would be
needed to damage a gold setting as suggested? NB my wife is not a
construction worker and doesn't operate heavy machinery ;)


One of the problems is that in order to make jewelry, goldsmiths need a metal
that can be worked, often with hand tools. That means that in general, we use
metals that are a bit soft and flexible. Gold, especially yellow gold in higher
karats (like 18K) is wonderfully malleable and soft to work with. But the
flipside is that normal wear and tear will also wear it down. Consider: You put
brake pads in your car. They're manufacured of materials softer than the brake
disks, and obviously wear down and need replacing. But the steel disks also wear
down, and eventually need replacing. Often the degree of wear on the disks is
many millimeters over time, and that may be only a few years. Although the
forces on brakes to stop a car are high, they are still only occasional, with
most of the time your car either just driving, or even more often, just sitting
parked somewhere. yet that highly durable and strong steel is abraded away by
the softer brake pads, and we accept that as normal and usual. yet the same
person who accepts that in their car, will put a ring on their finger, never take
it off, and expect it to last forever because there's this public perception that
precious metals, being resistant to corrosion and able to last centuries in a
museum, should somehow not wear in use either. Normal wear, even by gentle
people who abuse nothing, involves friction. Even if only with clothing.
There's house dust, and similar abrasives all around us, not to mention kitchen
sinks (ceramic) and who knows what all else. House dust is largely minerals,
harder than golds, and able to slowly abrade it So gold wears down. But the
change occurs slowly enough that owners just don't realize it's happening.

As to the non-construction worker thing, I recall one customer, a cute little
lady who must have weighed less than a hundred pounds, stood barely five feet
tall, and didn't have to work for a living. Took great care of her hands, never
did anything, she thought, that would damage her jewelry. Yet every time I saw
her jewelry, the prongs on her rings were all bent up, and the rings were often
all bent out of round too. She had no clue how it all happened. After talking
about this for a while, her husband noted a couple things... She tended to sleep
on her stomach, and often, it seems, was in the habit of sort of slipping her
hand over the side of the mattress, putting it between the matress and the box
spring. And he also noted that she tended to be a nervous driver, commonly
tapping her hands on the steering wheel, often in time to some music on the
radio. And so it went. Even simply little actions like that can easily put
forces on soft metals that can, over time, deform them significantly. It's easy
to say your wife never abused her jewelry or did heavy work. But she's alive and
uses her hands in all sorts of ordinary every day tasks, from getting dressed in
the morning, working in the kitchen, reaching in and out of pockets and pocket
books, and who knows what all else. All these things can put stress on jewelry,
and in some cases, cause damage.

There's no way, without really seeing the rings, for us to really tell you why
the damage occured. It may well be the store is entirely correct. Even if their
diagnosis of why it occured (the wedding ring rubbing) might not be right, it's
still quite possible that this was just normal wear and tear, due to you're not
having the ring checked now and then to be sure it was still secure. Or, perhaps
it was indeed a faulty setting.

I'd suggest that you take the ring to another, impartial, goldsmith and ask him
or her for an opinion. Since the store you bought it from obvious has an
interest in denying responsibility, someone without the liability hanging over
their head is more likely to give you an honest opinion.

Hope that's of use.

Peter


Many thanks for your patience and help.

Bob