In terms of color, I notice that different finishes and polishes
affect the colors of all sterlings. When I compare Argentium Sterling
and traditional sterling, WITH THE SAME FINISH ON EACH, they look the
same color to me.
Also, as far as I know, all the sterlings have at least 92.5% silver
and they all have SOME copper in them (the combination is what makes
sterling stronger than pure silver)— but there are other materials
replacing some of the usual 7.5% copper. So, I think that it would
be better if we could all agree to say something like “traditional
sterling” rather than “non-copper sterling”.
Valid and honest answer. Too few realize the value in that. The
skills developed by the practice are rather valuable. The cost
minimal.
Leonid’s Coronet ring is a perfect example.
Short cuts and cut corners are the reason we see so much inferior
work in the marketplace today. It is rampant among wire and metal
clay. Looking good enough is seemingly OK with far too many.
Fine craftsmanship develops with patience, practice and a strong
loupe.
As is sometims the case, coincidental threads can make the point.
Responsibility For Your Jewelery Craft is just such a point maker.
While Leonid’s ring might be great in platinum I think silver is a
woefully inadquate material. 18K? OK. I’d have reservations with 14K,
925 would prove a frustrating experience, which has been shown.
So many solder joints in a small area,in silver, is asking for
trouble because of its thermal conductivity. The slim prongs are not
going to hold much in a practical sense. In plat, yeah, silver, no.
In still another thread was mention of technique vs material(sorry,
forgot which thread, might be this one?). I suggest they are
sometimes inseperable. They are codependant. Teaching platinum work
by using silver will probably not result in the early ‘wins’ that
build confidence.
I can’t agree with this. If we can make our lives or our student’s
lives easier by introducing new methods and materials, then I think
we should. Personally, if firescale never happened again, (unless you
actually desired that effect), then I would welcome that innovation.
I don’t have a problem helping to make my students’ learning easier.
There is enough to learning technical skills and issues of
craftsmanship without the materials having inherent problems
themselves. If materials can be improved upon, then I won’t miss the
inferior product.
I’m not sure who commented that the non-copper alloyed sterlings
(technological wonders?) may be great alloys for casting,
granulation, but ARE UNSUITABLE FOR FABRICATION?
I and my students have been fabricating extensively with the S88 as
well as S57NA sterling alloys for at least 5 years in our studio. In
our experience, they roll out well, solder very well, draw into any
sized wire easily, and polish to a beautiful lasting shine. They are
generally a cleaner metal to work with than copper-alloyed
sterlings.
Casting with either the S88 or S57NA alloyed sterlings works very
well, coming out of the investment so clean they usually don’t need
to be pickled, believe it or not.
Seriously, if there is someone out there who thinks these new
sterling alloys are unsuitable for fabrication, I am quite curious
to know what problems you had with it.
I do absolutely endorse the belief that students should LEARN about
firescale… and how to minimise it, how to spot it at the sanding
stage, and how to clean it up properly!
Quite apart from the !@$#^%%aarrrgh factor, the follow on benefits
to the student should include (but not be limited to!):
A much improved ‘eye’ for all sorts of finer detail about their
work. That ‘eye’ really does have to be learned and developed over
time, and makes a huge difference to what can be achieved.
Good fluxing and soldering technique
Practise in good filing sanding and clean up techniques, (some of
my early bezel bases ended up far from flat because I tried to remove
the last bits of firescale with Tripoli on a goats hair brush but
didn’t know how to use it properly)
Noman also makes the valid point that ‘we do students a disservice
by making things too easy’… What’s even more of a shame is when you
go to a ‘graduate’ exhibition and see ‘interesting’ work beautifully
displayed but lousy with firescale and discover that some of the
’graduates’ don’t even know what it is because the focus of their
training was on ‘originality’ and ‘design’ with basic skills and
technique lagging behind.
So many solder joints in a small area,in silver, is asking for
trouble because of its thermal conductivity. The slim prongs are
not going to hold much in a practical sense. In plat, yeah, silver,
no.
Coronet Cluster is quite old design. It was very popular when
platinum was not even known and silver was commonly used as
background for diamonds. So it is very much possible to do it, and
actually it is one of the mile stones in skill acquisition.
We all need to be clear on what we are talking about. The
“Traditional Sterling” we are discussing, has just 2 ingredients,
92.5% pure silver, and 7.5% copper.
These newer “High Tech” sterlings still have 92.5% pure silver, but
have a proprietary combination of other metals (which may include
copper) to make up the remaining 7.5% alloy.
Let’s also note that Argentium and the other “high tech” sterling
alloys should not be automatically be put in the same category. All
these “high tech” sterlings have different attributes than
traditional sterling, but do not perform in exactly the same ways.
When I first learned jewelry fabricating in Pforzheim Germany, the
whole class of aspiring jewelers started with brass. Yes harder to
work, harder to saw and of course main reason the instructor could
see if your solder seems were perfect or not. All brass was soldered
with Sterling solder.
I have to agree with Jay here. I have been using the sterling S88
alloy from United for almost 10 years and have always found it
superior in every way to the old copper alloys. I have used it for
casting as well as forging. I have found that it does work harden a
little faster than the old copper alloys but have not found that to
be problem. Little to no firescale and I usually solder just using
boric acid and alcohol for a flux, unless I have multiple solders.
My alloy of choice…
I’ll respectfully (I know, since when do I ever appear respectful,
right?) disagree. Evidence being that Leonid got "a lot of emails’
reporting failure. So its not just one person who had trouble, its a
trend. I think that’s suggestive of a mismatch between design and
material, at the risk of repeating myself. I don’t see the point of
putting a lot of work into something complex that is inherently self
defeating. I would hope that Leonid would agree that material be
chosen based upon its suitability for the design. In fact I surmise
that’s his problem with argentium in the first place.
Use silver for what silver’s good for, use plat for what…blah
blah blah.
Well, having cast 100’s of kilos of Argentium and hundreds and
hundreds of kilos of Traditional Sterling alloys, formed and
fabricated Silver from sheet wire and stock, melted it, hammered it
(cursed it too!) We are back to a basic low oxidizing sterling
alloy. Why, Because when it all comes down to it, its just a better
looking metal, cooperative in casting and soldering( not as
cooperative in lasering!) predictable in work and finish, not as
persnickety in casting, not usually prone to cracking, tumbles nice,
polishes easy. Fire scale can be your friend as well as your enemy,
You can anneal up a great fine silver layer thats easy to finish and
tarnish resistant if you know how. Its back to an old friend.
With that said, I dont think the alloy is as important as the getting
into the doing of the process, the cutting, the fusing, the forging,
the melting, the casting. The doing of it far superceeds the worry of
what alloy to start with. Get in there and do it, Traditional
Sterling, Deox Sterling, Argentium, Sterlium, Sterling alloyed with
Platinum, with other noble metals, Try several, try them all, see
what works best for you ! but get in there and do it!
Recently I traded some scrap sterling with a local refiner, and in
exchange got some deox silver casting grains. Love it. Cast
beautifully, and does not seem to tarnish. It also takes a patina
well, good old liver of sulphate. Don’t know the compost ion of the
deox silver, but from now onit is my first choice for casting.
I do absolutely endorse the belief that students should LEARN
about firescale... and how to minimise it, how to spot it at the
sanding stage, and how to clean it up properly!
Another vote for learning to cope with firescale on traditional
sterling.
Valuable lessons are learned, and these will apply to fancier
alloys. But the day will come (usually sunday evening) when I need
another piece of silver now. A jug of fine silver and usually some
copper around without ripping out wires in the walls. Almost instant
new stock, and easy. Fancy alloys I can not make and would have to
depend on the brown truck in days.
Learn starting with the nastier metals, moving up the price curve is
fun unless you don’t have a basic foundation. I would suspect that
many people here started with basic sterling or should have. No magic
metals nor chemicals involved, just lots of practice.
When I first learned jewelry fabricating in Pforzheim Germany, the
whole class of aspiring jewelers started with brass. Yes harder to
work, harder to saw and of course main reason the instructor could
see if your solder seems were perfect or not. All brass was
soldered with Sterling solder.
It is a great point about solder visibility. I do want to point out
that in todays economy training on brass will be more expensive than
on silver. Silver can be reused. Not much can be done with brass,
but before copper prices went through the roof, it was the way to go
in school environment. I was trained in shop. Due to contamination
concerns, everybody started on silver.
Cast beautifully, and does not seem to tarnish. It also takes a
patina well, good old liver of sulphate. Don't know the compost ion
of the deox silver, but from now onit is my first choice for
casting.
I am sure everybody agrees that all these new alloys cast very well.
After all they were engineered for casting. The question is how well
they perform during fabrication. For simple things they will do fine.
The concern is the circumstances when one has to push the envelop.
And what some of us discover is that traditional sterling performs
better. Not everything that can be done with traditional sterling,
can be done with these alloys. That should not surprise anybody
because traditional sterling was engineered for silversmithing, when
metal undergoes tremendous amount of deformation and only improves
it’s properties, while new alloys were developed for casting.
Valuable lessons are learned, and these will apply to fancier
alloys. But the day will come (usually sunday evening) when I need
another piece of silver now. A jug of fine silver and usually some
copper around without ripping out wires in the walls. Almost
instant new stock, and easy. Fancy alloys I can not make and would
have to depend on the brown truck in days.
I’m with you on that!
You just need to put something together quickly in the shop, and
need to make some sterling “right now”. As you described, you take
your little bag of pure silver, the other little bag of alloy, and
melt up what you need!
So incredibly simple, and fast! I always have an envelope of a few
ounces of S57NA alloy handy in a drawer, and a stash of pure silver
in my safe. In a minute or two I’ve got my silver and alloy weighed
up, and melted into a sterling ingot.
It’s the easiest thing in the world to do, as long as you’ve got the
silver, alloy, a small calculator, and an accurate scale.
I agree with you, Jeff, when you’re in a hurry, it sure beats
waiting for the UPS truck!