Can a cast piece match handmade?

Jewelry Discussion
121 
If a ring has a handmade basket/ setting/ prongs is a cast ring of
the same size / weight etc. worth more or less? Considering the
stone(s) to be virtually the same in grade at least. As a
professional I would hazard a guess the handmade setting is worth
the premium for the time involved.

That’s a very fair assessment. However it’s a matter of perspective.
You’re looking from the perspective of a professional jeweller.

If, for arguments sake, a casting is an “exact” duplicate, of the
hand made version, the average customer wouldn’t appreciate the extra
work. If it looks the same they would go for value for money. They
would have to be educated, about the differences. Jewellers are
salesmen, or have a sales force that supports them.

Regards Charles

122 
If a ring has a handmade basket/ setting/ prongs is a cast ring of
the same size / weight etc. worth more or less? Considering the
stone(s) to be virtually the same in grade at least. As a
professional I would hazard a guess the handmade setting is worth
the premium for the time involved.

Premium is not the issue. Basket ring is one of those things, that
should only be hand fabricated.

Basket ring is the design, where idea is to hide all the metal.
Ideally, all that should be visible is center stone and accent
stones. This can only be accomplished when wires are thin, prongs are
tiny, and diamonds are touching. If one attempt to cast such a
structure, it would not have holding power to secure gemstones.
Client would start loosing stones in a month or two. To avoid this,
such rings cast more massive, and stones have some spacing.

There is a view on this forum that proponents of hand fabrication
are the Ivory Tower inhabitants, totally devoid of connection to the
“real world”. So let me give a real world example.

I got my first crack at high end market, by an accident. I worked
with a guy, who owned a small diamond mine in Zaire. It was
independent operation and he was having a hard time breaking through
De Beers machinery. I was doing small production runs, using his
stones.

He asked me to make and Eternity band only, instead of diamonds, 3
mm emeralds were used. Stone quality was superb, absolutely no
treatment. I completed the ring and he sent to his client. In one
week I got the ring back. All twisted like a pretzel. Apparently,
his client had the ring in her bag, and bag was on the trunk of her
car, she was backing her car, the bag fell, and she rolled over it.

Not a single stone was lost or cracked or chipped. I did the ring
anew, using the same stones. Do not take it, as I am bragging about
my skills, but take is a testimony to the properties of wrought
metal, and its ability to protect and hold stones. Incidentally,
after that, I worked with her for over 10 years, and her references
were very instrumental, in getting access to that market.

I know, I am not going to convince the “practical jewelers”, but I
do have a message for someone, who just starting. Succeeding as a
goldsmith is like a military service. First you work for your
reputation, and then your reputation works for you.

Leonid Surpin

123 
Why? Time and Cost, of course. Getting a model digitized (unless
you have all the equipment yourself, which is a pricey thing
already), and then grown or milled is a hundred bucks at least.

I was viewing this discussion as replication of an existing item, I
am not going to mass produce Leonid’s work, just copy it for the
purposes of a learning exercise. Which he has given us authority to
do. I don’t intend to make more than one, as it’s his work, I’m
honour bound not to make more than one. What I will learn from the
exercise is the limitations, and costs. I may have a client in the
future that wants this exact same process performed.

Digitising is expensive at the moment, but it is getting cheaper,
and more accurate. Bench top scanning was unheard of a relatively
short time ago, now it’s only a modest investment. Leonid’s ring can
be broken down into primitives (head scratchers: primitives = base
shapes), and manipulated with boolean functions to get the cut outs
etc., so it can be remastered with a 3d application. I only have to
get one section of Leonid’s ring perfect, the computer can calculate
the rest.

I can see where you’re coming from, from a cost point of view. I’ve
also wondered about injection waxes, high definition gravity waxes
may offer a solution to this unevenness that you speak of. I was
given a box of high definition gravity wax pour as a deal sweetener,
whatever you pour it into, it makes, it has a very low viscosity
(however it’s as brittle as hell). Just an aside, anyone know where
to buy this type of wax (?), I’ve got a large quantity left, but
it’s going to run out some day. In an open mould it will be subject
to surface tension, in a close mould, well that’s a different matter
isn’t it. One thing I’ve noticed about this wax is that it doesn’t
shrink noticeably, and I have to fight it to get it out of a rubber.

I can make a decent high definition mould, out of cold set RTV (I
choose these for obvious reasons).

I don’t think CAD, or rapid prototyping, is a solution for every
piece, but as I said it’s getting better. I saw a smiley face made
with gold atoms the other day, I appreciate that kind of science,
because the logical conclusion from that research is that eventually
we will be able to make anything atom by atom (imo: cool x infinity).

Oh, and printing direct to metal? I've not seen this done in gold
or silver or platinum yet to produce a solid piece of precious
metal in an alloy the same as we'd normally use. Have I missed
something? Given the pace of development, I might have blinked and
missed it. If so, I'd love to learn more...

But you have seen metal printing, if it was precious metal printing,
then our days would be numbered… only a matter of time imo. Maybe
we should be making works like it’s our last piece? Make every piece
count?

Your CAD/CAM made model will produce an attractive piece, to be
sure. But there WILL be visible differences in this case. The
customer might not notice, but any jeweler will see them.

This is the point for me to see “if” I can make some thing that
looks the same. The 3d model will be symmetrically perfect, and
possibly be as cold as the machine that calculates its curves. I’m
going to get Leonid to check the details first before I get it
machined/printed. If it doesn’t pass that point. Then the exercise is
a failure.

I’ve seen some pretty detailed waxes, with internal machining…
probably going to cost me a small fortune, but I have to know, my
curiosity demands it :wink:

Regards Charles

124 
proponents of hand fabrication are the Ivory Tower inhabitants,
totally devoid of connection to the "real world".

Leonid, you’re not a proponent of hand fabrication, you’re
anti-casting. There is a world of difference between the two. I’d
hazard to say that there are few, if any, here who can match my own
fabrication skills (that’s neither boast nor challenge to any, I’m
just good at it). I like the quote about making your reputation and
it will make you. My own extends to Cartier, Boucheron, work in
DeBeers ads, Oakland Museum, ad nauseum. All the while using casting
for what casting is used for. Funny how that happens… It’s the
work that matters.

125 
Up to a point Jim Kelso's production work could be chased and
carved following casting to a higher level of detail but eventually
you would reach a time where the cost of the hand work would take
it to the point where you would be better off just starting from
fabricated material.

What might seem a disagreement between me and Jim is the exact
opposite, and really the exact point of it all. You can’t make
$50,000 pieces for everybody, all the time - not on this planet,
anyway. Jim Kelso, mentioned above, has a highly detailed, finely
worked, lovely line - I didn’t see any prices, but I didn’t look for
them either. His production line is likely 1/2 the price in many
cases, and that’s smart business. Using the basket ring, again,
fabricating one for $100 worth of stones is just plain bone-headed,
unless there’s some particular reason like custom stones or customer
preference. I might sound mercenary pounding away at it, but the
point isn’t to make it, the point is to sell it - a quality product
at an attractive price - the definition of value. Kelso’s high line
is that, no doubt, and his budget line is that too, all at the same
time. Smart man.

126

I’m 56 but just now learning jewelry making. Realistically,
individual jewelers cannot compete with outlets like Jewelry TV.
Which is better: an original Monet oil or a Monet poster from Wal
Mart? What we make must be better and different. What books, dvds,
etc would everyone recommend to learn how to hand manufacture
jewelry? I’ve seen some videos on Ganoksin’s website and find them
helpful and fascinating.

Rick

127

I’ll catch up on this thread all at once, bear with me.

I wonder how different this might be if this question was
reversed…Can handmade match a casting? Think about it, the
parameters are quiet different.

And to Charles Anderson…I think you might have overlooked some
things. Sure, you (generic) probably can cast a ring that ‘looks
like’ Leonid’s ring (or any other for that matter). But you(generic)
didn’t create the layout. You still needed a model from which to
work. So this becomes an exercise in knocking off not creating. I
know Leonid has given permission and I understand its a theoretical
‘fun’ thing, but what are you (again generic) gonna do on the next
piece and the one after that? OK now you have digitized The Fishtail.
I hope you maybe make the cross section a bit thicker. Its been my
experience that thinnish eternity bands are inherently weak. I’m not
trying to dissuade you from your quest, just adding a thought or
two.

Basket ring is the design, where idea is to hide all the metal.
Ideally, all that should be visible is center stone and accent
stones. This can only be accomplished when wires are thin, prongs
are tiny, and diamonds are touching

I’m sorry, to have girdles touching is asking for chipped stones,
imho. Generally its safer and more aesthetically pleasing to tuck the
side stones under the center but not touching, if you’re going for a
compact, "stones’ look.

First you work for your reputation, and then your reputation works
for you.

Absolutely true! But there’s difference between what we think our
reputations are and what the public says our reputations are.

Sitting there hand-fabricating basket set rings on a shank with any
dimension, over and over again, is a fool's errand, though. Again,
it boils down to business - making a special order ring because it
needs to be made is what keeps me in business.

I sell a lot of basket three stoners, to order. If the stone sizes
allow it and the budget demands it I’ll buy a casting, badda bing
next job please. Most often though the stone size groupings I have to
deal with are unique (no, you can’t elegantly squeeze a 65 pointer
into a half carat side mount while putting a 1 carat stone into the 1
1/2 carat center) so it must be made. Also when its made you can vary
the variables. Height, splay, prong thickness etc. My preference is
to make, hey like John that’s what I do. I ‘could’ make a mold of
every setup I do, but 1) there’s never time, 2) cast is not wrought
3) I’d put myself out of work. So sometimes I remain a fool. But an
employed fool.

that casting is bad because they think of it as cast, polish, put
in showcase, but that's not how the world actually
works...........Unfortunately way too many pieces of jewelry are
done exactly like that.

Let’s remember that while we as pros have our standards these
‘substandard’ pieces have their place too. They make us look good!
Seriously though, they sell, they provide an income for somebody.
They provide a relatively inexpensive piece for the cost conscious
consumer. But boy do they make us look good to the more
discriminating client.

I would hazard a guess the handmade setting is worth the premium
for the time involved.

I think the premium is deserved on account of detail and
performance. Value, imho, is not based on what the jeweler puts into
it but what the client gets out of it.

I want to stress that I have no disdain for anyone who is
struggling/learning/starting out

I wasn’t pointing a finger, my comment was more rhetorical in
nature, camp vs camp. I am myself sometimes perturbed by stuff I
read. I usually stop my grousing by lunchtime.

I guess sometimes I might come across as more cantankerous than I
actually am

I worry about this too, after every time I hit ‘send’.

Neil The Blowhard.

128 
he was referring to working goldsmiths such as himself, earning a
living from his craft

Always, Helen, always. Neil is another who doesn’t seem to have much
interest in “angels on the head of a pin” arguments. I interpret
Leonid’s comment as yet another variation of “You’re not an artist
because you’re not starving.” No, I’m successful and I’m mature. Past
my prime, even. And my intent here on Orchid is always to try to
point people in the same direction, and reach the same goals, in
their own ways.

You need to get out of your own way. First, you’re an artist. So
what? Being an artist doesn’t mean sipping cappucinos in your arty
clothes, it means making art. If you don’t sell that art, you won’t
be doing it for long. You’re at a show, and a man walks up to you. He
says, “I love this design, I’d like to put it in my stores. Maybe
one piece per store, to start, and I have 1,000 stores. How does
$25,000 sound for a deposit?” Hey, it can happen… So you say No,
it violates the purity of my art to do mass production? I won’t do
that because it would mean I can buy a house and I like sleeping on
the sofa? I can’t have people wearing it because they don’t
understand me? What?

Diamonds aren’t an evil representation of all that’s wrong with the
world, they’re rocks (well, a mineral). They’re no different from
leather or wood or brass, they just cost more and bring a tidy
profit.

If people aren’t buying your work, it could be the venue or it could
be because they just don’t want it. You need to listen to your
public and tail or your product to what they want. They are never
wrong, and they do understand - it’s your job to make something they
want to buy.

And as I write this there’s a flask in the kiln with biker jewelry
in it contract casting. They are elaborately carved pieces that are
around $1,000 in work, each, and they’re selling for $75 wholesale.
Because of course they come out of a mold, and there’s just no way
to do that business any other way. At the same time I have a
platinum wedding set with pave diamonds. And more…

It’s jewelry, it’s a product, it’s the business of art. There IS
good art and bad art, unless you just want to argue about stuff. But
we’re not in the business of making those distinctions, we’re in the
jewelry manufacturing business. Well, we DO have standards, but
somebody gave me $10 yesterday for spending 5 minutes sand blasting
a ring. I’ll take it…

129 
And if I also recall his post correctly Leonid, he was putting you
in the latter category, as you have said in the past that you don't
need to earn your living from what you do. Therefore the whole
casting vs handmade argument has a lot to do with the economics of
both methods, and which one is viable for sustaining an income.

This is a fair point. It is not my intention to convince John, or
any other jewelers, who organized their businesses to respond to
certain economical pressures. I am very cognizant of practicalities
of running a business. I simply want to point out, that there are
alternatives.

There is a constant war of wits between a jeweler and a client.
Client probes how far it can push, so jeweler would work for
starvation wages, and many do. That is because many jewelers do not
respect themselves, even if they would not admit it even to
themselves. Sometimes I wish that professional guilds would return.
A lot to be said of time, when goldsmith would have to go through
many years of training and certification, before one can actually
practice the craft.

I guess what I am saying is Stop working for nothing. Increase the
level of quality and sophistication. Goldsmith is very demanding
profession, requiring expertise in many areas, and deserves the
outmost respect. And behave like it. If such an attitude is going to
cost you few clients, in the long run, you would be better of.

As an example, let me use a company like Apple. Apple product is
priced higher that it’s competition, but Apple sales are growing,
while competition’s declines. Apple concentrates on quality, while
competition concentrates on price. Everybody should ponder why is it
so.

It is not a job of a goldsmith, to make something in the cheapest
way possible. The job of a goldsmith is to make something to the best
of his abilities. It is up to a client to arrange for financing to
be able to afford goldsmith time and efforts.

Leonid Surpin

130 
Then I tell them the difference between a bench jeweler, a jobbing
jeweler and retail jeweler.

Just so I’m on the same page. Although I have many years in very
different employ, I’m still only a 1st year in the Jewellery
industry, can you inform me of the differences.

I am studying to be a “fine jeweller”, not a designer, although I
will do some of my own designs, so please :slight_smile:

Regards Charles

131 
First you work for your reputation, and then your reputation works
for you.

Well said, Leonid.

And not, I think, just for the beginners. worth remembering for all
of us.

Peter Rowe

132 
Digitising is expensive at the moment, but it is getting cheaper,
and more accurate. Bench top scanning was unheard of a relatively
short time ago, now it's only a modest investment. Leonid's ring
can be broken down into primitives (head scratchers: primitives =
base shapes), and manipulated with boolean functions to get the cut
outs etc., so it can be remastered with a 3d application. I only
have to get one section of Leonid's ring perfect, the computer can
calculate the rest.

Rather than scanning and all that, probably much quickly to redraw
the thing in a decent jewelry CAD program. We use Matrix at work, and
a ring like Leonid’s design might take our CAD modeller (not the most
proficient such person you’ll ever meet either, but she gets the job
done) an hour or so to get it ready to mill on the Revo Mill. The
result would be a fine looking model which would be easy enough to
cast and finish up. But I’d never suggest that the finished piece
would come close to Leonid’s handmade piece. So long as you don’t
design with that aim in mind, and keep the limitations of the process
involved in the design process, you can get fine results. But that
doesn’t mean it’s the same in all respects. it just isn’t.

.. also wondered about injection waxes, high definition gravity
waxes may offer a solution to this unevenness that you speak of. I
was given a box of high definition gravity wax pour as a deal
sweetener, whatever you pour it into, it makes, it has a very low
viscosity (however it's as brittle as hell). Just an aside, anyone
know where to buy this type of wax (?),

Closest thing to that I’ve ever seen are some dental inlay waxes.
Dark blue, low melting point, Almost thin as water when melted. But
they do shrink some, air bubbles are a problem with plain gravity
pours… Not sure if this is the same as you’re talking about. The
other more recent product this reminds me of is a photosensative
polymer. Very thin liquid, you use it with transparent silicon molds.
inject it into the mold as a liquid, and spin it (the manufacturer
suggests putting the mold in the end of a sock and spinning it
around. Really. Not high tech, but it works.) Anyway, once the mold
is filled, and you can take as long as you like to get it there, you
then expose to U.V. light (that’s why the transparent silicone rubber
mold) to cure it to a fairly strong, rigid, no shrink plastic model.
Then the only shrinkage you have left is the cooling metal. Neat
product. Not so cheap, but doable if you need such. Last I looked,
Gesswein carried it, among others.

I don't think CAD, or rapid prototyping, is a solution for every
piece, but as I said it's getting better. I saw a smiley face made
with gold atoms the other day, I appreciate that kind of science,
because the logical conclusion from that research is that
eventually we will be able to make anything atom by atom (imo: cool
x infinity).

Yeah, maybe. That’l be the real iteration of what, when I was in
grad school mid '80s, was referred to as “santa claus machines”. They
were talking about RP modellers then, which were still at that point
fine for automotic prototypes, but not at all fine enough surfaces
for jewelry. it’s come a long way since. However, I don’t quite
expect everyone to be able to put a scanning electron microscope on
their desktop and manipulate gold atoms directly, at reasonable cost,
any time soon.

Personally, I won’t be happy with one till it’s as good as the star
trek replicators. Need a hot cup of tea? A fresh bottle of insulin?
An ounce of gold casting grain or heck, the finished ring, just punch
in your selections on the microwave oven like control panel nd
voila…

Oh, and printing direct to metal? I've not seen this done in gold
or silver or platinum yet to produce a solid piece of precious
metal in an alloy the same as we'd normally use. Have I missed
something? Given the pace of development, I might have blinked and
missed it. If so, I'd love to learn more... 

But you have seen metal printing, if it was precious metal
printing, then our days would be numbered... only a matter of time
imo. Maybe we should be making works like it's our last piece? Make
every piece count?

You should do that anyway.

The direct metal printing I saw was not at all ready for prime time
jewelry. it produces a porous semi sintered object that then needs
secondary molten metal infill (Like filling a sponge with water).
It’s what Bathsheba Grossman’s sculptures, those being directly
printed, use. Semi sintered steel filled with bronze, if I recall.
Fine for her sculptures, but not only are the materials far from
anything like our precious metals, but the surface finishes are not
yet at all close to those from solidscape machines or good milling
machines, and these, as I’ve said, are themselves not the equal of
the finishes you get with good hand fabrication. Direct to metal is
intersting. But so far, of little use to jewelry. Another interesting
method is direct printing of what amounts to a ceramic shell mold,
suitable for casting. again, interesting, but not yet ready for
jewelry prime time.

There was, no doubt, a time in our craft when old timers, used to
fully hand making everything totally with hand power, bemoaned the
loss of quality that no doubt would come with these new fangled torch
things, electrical motor things, and what about those lights that
weren’t at all as good as sunlight… Some of what those craftspeople
knew how to do, has died with them, and a few of us now and then try
to rediscover what they knew. But the jewelry craft has survived more
or less intact anyway.

The new technologies will do many new things. Some of the ways we
work now will become obsolete. But don’t be so quick to kiss the
craft goodbye. It will change, as will the way goldsmiths work, but
the craft, I think, is not likely to die out.

And on the other side, don’t be so sure these future capabilities
will be here just tomorrow or next week. CAD/CAM and RP technologies
have been in developement and gradually being accepted and used for
the last 25 years or more, with our industry being one of the last to
really start to use it. It may seem overnight, for those to whom the
introduction is recent. But these things take longer to develop than
it may seem. I doubt you’ll see your atom by atom RP machine being
available to your desktop at an affordable price within your career’s
time, even if you’re just starting out. There will be many new
developments, incremental ones, and it may seem like it’s evolving
very quickly and overnight. But take it step by step. That atom by
atom one is more than just a few small steps, I think…

This is the point for me to see "if" I can make some thing that
looks the same. The 3d model will be symmetrically perfect, and
possibly be as cold as the machine that calculates its curves.

Perfect geometry doesn’t seem cold. Really good hand fabrication can
also exhibit very high symmetry and perfection of form, and it
doesn’t suffer from it. The CAD waxes also have their surface
texture. That’s a problem if trying to duplicate hand fabricated. But
if not, it can be wonderfully beautiful in it’s own right. Can look
like Moire patterns on the surface, or fine wood grain. Very cool
sometimes, especially on the higher resolution mills where some
textures can catch the light in an almost irridescent way.

I've seen some pretty detailed waxes, with internal machining...
probably going to cost me a small fortune, but I have to know, my
curiosity demands it ;-)

There are strict limits as to the capabilities of “internal”
machining, even with the most complex 5 or six axis CAM machines.
Jewerly CAD/CAM mills don’t generally carry it that far. (3 axis
normal mill plus rotary axis is the norm for the best of the jewelry
CAM mills). The bottom line is that you need to be able to reach the
desired surfaces with a standard slim taper mill of some sort. You
can reach less than you can see with a loupe, simply because of the
geometry of the tool. And current CAD milling software also doesn’t
let the mill attack the piece from all possible angles either. Trust
me on this. The CAD mills you can get a jewelry grade wax milled
from, won’t duplicate all the clean internal geometry of Leonids
piece, and even if it did, those would then be areas you couldn’t
even begin to remove the stair step texture from. if you want full
internal geometry, the only current method that’s good enough for
good jewelry waxes remains the solidscape type of machine, which
grows the waxes. They are not limited as to geometry. They can even
product fully closed hollow forms, though of course then you can’t
cast it that way without at least punching some holes in your form.
But as I said, these machines, wonderful though they are, generally
produce an even more pronounced stair step than can the good mills
running at highest resolution.

Your best bet, if you want to try and fully duplicate Leonids piece
via casting, is to use a CAD/CAM mill to produce the ring, but in
four seperate pieces. Inner surface, outer surface, and two sides,
exactly the same as the way Leonid hand builds his pieces in metal.
Then you can fully duplicate the geometry, and can finish the wax
surfaces inside and out. You could then assemble the componants in
wax and cast as one piece, but then you’d not get the interior
finished right. Or cast the four seperate pieces, finish in metal,
and laser weld or solder together just as leonid does. The advantage
is you still are letting the computer get all the layout and piercing
done accurately, saving you much time consuming and demanding work.
Done like this, you could pretty much duplicate the look of Leonids
piece. What it would not yet do, however, is give you the same
metalurgical integrity of his forged/rolled/drawn metal versus your
cast metal. You might still have porosity issues, and the metal
likely would be a little softer and less strong, depending on the
metal. In some, such as heat treatable alloys, you could come very
close indeed, since then you’ve got control over the final hardness
too. But it’s still a casting. Close enough? maybe. But not
guaranteed.

And it’s probably also worth mentioning that this particular test is
an extreme one. If you, as a CAD/CAM caster, are trying to produce
fine jewelry as good as much of the fabricated work out there, well,
that’s a lot easier than setting your target standard at the level of
expertise in hand fabrication, of someone like Leonid. It’s one thing
to want to run well enough to make your high school track team. it’s
another to want to make the U.S. Olympic track team… The one is a
laudable goal that not everyone can do, worthy of respect and
needing some work and drive. The second, well, that’s an order of
magnitude harder… your test is somewhat similar in nature.

Peter Rowe

133 
you're not a proponent of hand fabrication, you're anti-casting.
There is a world of difference between the two

This is “glass half full or half empty” distinction. Since jewellery
is made either one way or another, been a proponent of one technique,
makes you anti another technique by definition. All depends on how
much negativity one wants to attach to a position of the other.

I have no doubt that you are very good at hand fabricating. No
jeweler, who spent, many years at the bench, can survive without
them, even if, such jeweler specializing in casting only. This is
not the argument about superiority of one technique over the other.
This is about teaching hand fabrication as primary skill, and not as
some kind of an addendum.

Quality casting is not possible without good hand fabrication
techniques. Someone has to make a model, and not everything is
appropriate to make in wax. I do have a huge problem, when cost is
used as an argument agains hand fabrication. In my opinion, jewellery
is not expensive enough. I take it as an insult, when people pay 90
dollars per hour for changing oil in their cars, but expected me to
work for one third.

Look at it like this. We have several trades who make a living with
their hands - like plumbers, electricians, we can even add truck
drivers, and etc. Out of all these, as an average, goldsmiths are
the least paid. If we arrange the list in order of skills required -
goldsmith would be on the very top, even if we include doctors and
lawyers in the list. And we did it to ourselves. In our zeal to make
things as cheap as possible, overall quality of jewellery is on the
level of garbage as well as our compensation. There is definite
correlation between the two.

I am not anti-casting as a technique. I am anti-casting as a
definition of what goldsmith does. I have very extensive experience
in casting as a model maker. But we do not even talk about casting
in these terms.

We say - take a sketch, stuff it in a computer, push a few button,
and jewellery comes out on the other end. That is a public
perception, and sure, nobody can expect to be paid for that.

Leonid Surpin

134 
But you(generic) didn't create the layout. You still needed a
model from which to work. So this becomes an exercise in knocking
off not creating.

Of course I didn’t, but with the processes that I’ll learn, I can
make original designs, so there is scope.

I know Leonid has given permission and I understand its a
theoretical 'fun' thing, but what are you (again generic) gonna do
on the next piece and the one after that?

Actually already have an item planned. A friend wants an AK47 ring.
The AK47 is a stock model, and is highly detailed, I intend to have
a wax machined of the gun on a rectangular base, then manufacture two
rings (see I’m happy to do hand work also :wink: ) The reason I want to
manufacture the rings, is that it’s more convenient to do it this
way, and it fits in with the subjects I’m covering in class.

There are several other items I need to get a machined wax model,
plus hand work is also required for these special projects. Without
the precision that a machine can provide, the pieces would not
function as I want them to (function is the operative word here).
Also without the hand fabrication, the projects would also fail to
function as expected.

They’ll be fun to do regardless :slight_smile:

Regards Charles

135 
Seriously though, they sell, they provide an income for somebody.
They provide a relatively inexpensive piece for the cost conscious
consumer. But boy do they make us look good to the more
discriminating client.

Getting to the bottom of it, little by little, I think. Reposting
Jim B.'s excellent links:

http://www.arscives.com/jkelso/unique.htm
http://www.arscives.com/jkelso/edition.htm

Is an excellent example, and I think can clarify all things. The
pieces used as examples on this thread are commodity pieces -
eternity rings of any style, basket settings of any style,
three-stone rings of any style. I have molds for plain wedding bands
but I buy them from the vendors because of the superior metal and
precision…

I do think that some might look at the Kelso links above with a
crooked perspective, though. The “unique” page has some beautiful
work (don’t like sheet metal jewelry, but that’s me). Obviously hand
crafted with a fair precision. ~But~ Aside from the metallurgical
properties, which mean little if anything in a pendant, who is to
say that they are “better”?

Personally, I think the cast and partially cast line is a fine
looking thing in itself - to a large degree you are talking about a
matter of taste and a fundamental misunderstanding. That “you” like
the crisp look of the first doesn’t make it better, it just means
you like it more. Same with Leonid’s ring - I’m with Neil, there are
things I would change right off.

And when you take this discussion away from the commodity pieces
into the vast world of jewelry manufacture, all bets are off. I
recently molded an antique jewelry box key for a client who collects
them - impossible to do any other way. As we’ve all said and Peter
puts quite well today - yes, you can make a key, but you ~cannot~
make THAT key, because it has wear and tear that we want to keep. The
finished product is minimally worked, and it looks old because it
is.

One more time: trying to cram fabrication into casting and vice-vera
is the stuff of beginning art school. Casting the casting work and
fabricating the fabrication is just how jewelry is made.

136 
Always, Helen, always. Neil is another who doesn't seem to have
much interest in "angels on the head of a pin" arguments. I
interpret Leonid's comment as yet another variation of "You're not
an artist because you're not starving." No, I'm successful and I'm
mature. Past my prime, even. And my intent here on Orchid is always
to try to point people in the same direction, and reach the same
goals, in their own ways.

LOL this reminds me of an award winning artist that we were
delivering a large frame to.

One of the deliverers commented that he knew of a gallery that not
only displayed paintings, but sculpture also, and suggested that he
could display his works there.

“Oh no, I couldn’t display my art there!” said this man. “I would
never display my art with craft!”

Basically I’m a sculptor, and I found his comment quite offensive.

As far as I’m concerned, if you make something, you’re an artist.

Regards Charles

137 
Your best bet, if you want to try and fully duplicate Leonids
piece via casting, is to use a CAD/CAM mill to produce the ring,
but in four seperate pieces. Inner surface, outer surface, and two
sides, exactly the same as the way Leonid hand builds his pieces in
metal. Then you can fully duplicate the geometry, and can finish
the wax surfaces inside and out. You could then assemble the
componants in wax and cast as one piece, but then you'd not get the
interior finished right. Or cast the four seperate pieces, finish
in metal, and laser weld or solder together just as leonid does.
The advantage is you still are letting the computer get all the
layout and piercing done accurately, saving you much time consuming
and demanding work. Done like this, you could pretty much duplicate
the look of Leonids piece.

Thanks for that, once I get the model right, I can disect it. That’s
given me a lot to think of, early days yet.

And it's probably also worth mentioning that this particular test
is an extreme one. If you, as a CAD/CAM caster, are trying to
produce fine jewelry as good as much of the fabricated work out
there, well, that's a lot easier than setting your target standard
at the level of expertise in hand fabrication, of someone like
Leonid. It's one thing to want to run well enough to make your high
school track team. it's another to want to make the U.S. Olympic
track team... The one is a laudable goal that not everyone can do,
worthy of respect and needing some work and drive. The second,
well, that's an order of magnitude harder... your test is somewhat
similar in nature.

This is how I do things though. I take a very hard challenge, and do
my very best. This results in knowing my limitations, new techniques,
or mastery… lesser challenges are therefore not a problem. Even
with the Mokume, I’ve chosen as my first project as mixing silver
with 90/10 bronze. The reason I chose these metals is that in
Ferguson’s book, a table reports these metals are difficult to fuse,
and are difficult to manipulate once made into a billet.

I like a challenge :wink:

Regards Charles

138

Microchips are metal printed to an accuracy of the wavelength of
light. I can imagine printing in layers of a few atoms. So much on
the horizon and I marvel at the relentless advance in technology.

New technology is devoted to providing essential components.
Industrial art is the poor cousin at first, but it matures over the
years until either the technology becomes pure art, or until so few
examples remain of the mass production that they are collectable and
precious.

There will always be a need for the ability to wield a hammer like
an artist weilds a brush.

Alastair

139 
There will always be a need for the ability to wield a hammer like
an artist weilds a brush.

Unfortunately there are a lot of dying arts. Leather work, is one
that is pretty much dead in Australia. It was pretty big in the 70’s,
but now it’s a shadow. Can I get an apprentice, or can I give free
tuition… I haven’t found anyone that wants to learn. So much for
30+ years of experience :frowning:

Regards Charles

140

Leonid,

Two very different skills. If you can use either well where best
suited you will be a better jeweller. Simply pick the best tool for
any specific job.

Any time you close a door behind you lose. Close a door ahead and
you lose a lot more

Real world and cost is a consideration. I believe in charging just
over what the market will accept, if I can cut my costs and still
produce what they want all the better.

Your attitude on cadcam is downright scary. I guess you haven’t
tried to use it at your perceived level of perfection.

Last time I looked there were far more than just one button to push.

jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand