Back to Ganoksin | FAQ | Contact

Eternity ring in CAD/CAM completed


#21

Harold,

Great work! It’s a beautiful job!

John


#22
There are more problems than spacing between the stones. Did
anyone notice that spaces between base ring and the gallery are
filled ? This is a very serious deviation from design. 
Did anyone notice how crude the ajoure is ? Did anyone notice
that prongs literary choke the stones?

Of course I noticed the list of replication flaws. I stopped at the
stone spacing because that alone ruins the idea of what an eternity
band historically is supposed to be.

The advent of cadcam introduced all sorts of odd stone spacings, no
holes behind diamonds, (etc…), sacrificing quality work for speed
and mass production, which evolved into offshore manufacturing where
an abundance of mill-graining hides sloppy setting, and finishing.

Handmade construction of an an eternity ring allows the pursuit of
intricate detailing everywhere, meaning the insides are as high
polished, detailed, and finished, as the outside, if one’s standards
of quality are to acheive as highend result as possible, with
finesse in every regard. if all the skills (and desire) are in the
soul and the hands that create it.

As Leonid says, there’s a sense of touch that eminates from a
handmade piece of jewelry, which is definitely missing in a
machine-made effort, which looks like a milled sprocket off of a
10-speed bike.

Marko


#23
what is the printing cost of the ring ? 

The four waxes are going to cost me $35 each, and are being printed
today, they’ll post them to me on Monday.

If I had my act together, the waxes could have been printed and cast
with a 24 hour turn around, in any metal.

As it is I want to post photos of the waxes first, be able to
examine them, and let the members choose one to cast (hey I’m not
made of money ;-)).

Regards Charles A.

P. S. I have an excellent setter lined up. If I had the time I’d set
the stones myself.


#24
It is not his fault or anyone else for that matter. It is a
limitation of CAD/CAM/casting process, resulting in metal far too
weak to allow for detailing, which separates real jewellery from
something just happened to be made of precious metals. 

We shall see :wink: CIA


#25

Hi

writing from a purely theoretical point here. I thought that with an
eternity ring the key was movement of light. The light should go
through the table of one stone and as the ring is moved the light
travels into the next stone via the girdle. Before it goes through
that stone’s table. To see if the CAD ring does this then we would
need a video. I think the stones are too far apart for this to
happen.

That said I think there are many customers who would purchase the
CAD ring. The Chinese may be soon doing this with CZs in sterling and
will sell millions. So western productions houses get a move on as
this will make one very nice mass produced piece of bling.

For a first try very good, let us see some refinements in the next
one. After all CAD makes these things easy does it not?

Richard
Xtines Jewels.


#26

Hi guys,

It is not his fault or anyone else for that matter. It is a
limitation of CAD/CAM/casting process, resulting in metal far too
weak to allow for detailing, which separates real jewellery from
something just happened to be made of precious metals. 

So you’re saying that 95% of all jewelry sold in the US is random
crap that happens to be made of precious metals? (I’m not saying
that I disagree, personally, but I just want to be clear about this.)
Because the real issue you’re having isn’t CAD/CAM, it’s the fact
that cast metal isn’t as strong as fabricated wrought material.

To which I have two responses: (A) No kidding, and (B) so if casting
sucks, that means that the vast majority of all commercial jewelry
sucks as well, because it’s all cast.

So to you, Leonid, there is no such thing as cast jewelry. Just
random castings that happen to be in precious metals, and might
somehow be stuck to a human body. Possibly encrusted with stones. But
not jewelry, because the definition of jewelry is hand fabrication,
not bodily adornment. Do I read you correctly?

To be serious for a moment, I’m not entirely sure I disagree that
95% of commercial jewelry is crap, but I’d fail it based on
pedestrian (mall) design, rather than any particular technical
process.

That said, I want to explain about photo of the ring. The only
reason I posted it is because someone said that they cannot
proceed without one. The truth is that photo is simply irrelevant.
Do not try to copy appearance, but do try to copy idea of allowing
diamonds as much light as possible. On my website one should find
Eternity ring guide, where few suggestions on variation of gallery
design are made. 
So actual appearance can differ as long as main idea is preserved. 
The reason I consider Harold's attempt a failure is while
appearance was copied, the idea of allowing diamonds as much light
as possible was entirely destroyed. 

Now for a serious question. This isn’t entirely related to Leonid,
he just happened to bring it to the forefront of what passes for my
brain.

Exactly how much light passes through a finger?

Leonid is by no means the first person I’ve heard go to great
lengths to explain how they lightened up a setting to get the
maximum amount of light “through” the stone. Conveniently forgetting
that when worn, there is exactly zero visible light passing
through the finger it’s on. (X-rays, Gamma rays, and cosmic neutrino
radiation yes, but anything we can see? No.)

On Leonid’s ring, you can make a case that opening up the side
azures does allow incident side-light to hit the pavilion facets,
and maybe bounce out the front, possibly, but even then it’s
marginal.

On plenty of other rings, I’ve heard designers talking about opening
up the backs of the settings, where there is absolutely no
possible way for any light to get at them. (when worn) Where did
this idea of letting light through the stone from the back come
from? I’m most curious.

The other thing I’m curious about is the cut of a modern diamond.
From what I remember (dimly) when talking to gemologist friend of
mine many moons ago, a modern diamond is cut such that all the light
that comes in the front facets bounces around and ends up going back
out the front, to increase brilliance. But as I recall, light coming
in from the sides or rear does not end up going out the front. I’m
about the farthest thing from a rockhound there is, so could someone
out there who knows more about the optical geometry of diamonds help
straighten me out? If what I believe is true, then it frankly
doesn’t matter what you do to the settings, in terms of brilliance
of stone, so long as you don’t obscure the front facets.

Regards,
Brian


#27
The point is that we humans like imperfections. Not too much, but
just right. That is why handwork is so much appreciated. CAD/CAM
boasts precision, uniformness, and etc. But it is not what valued
in jewellery. When things done by hand and details are carefully
refined, a goldsmith introduces minor variations that become
his/her signature. There is a very thin line between intentional
disharmony and sloppiness, but that is the subject for another
day.

This is a very important point. I think it’s the difference between
something that is just a pretty piece of metal and stones to wear or
something that is a work of art. There is nothing like looking down
at a beautiful ring on your finger or pendant around your neck and
thinking, “someone’s hands made this for me.” You can really see
that person’s hands in the work. And yes, the “story for another
day” is how you can see a person’s hand working badly in a
shoddily-made piece. But I’m talking about well-made pieces. I’m not
saying that CAD/CAM can in no way make great jewelry, it’s just that
it will be very hard to put into a CAD/CAM-made piece that illusive
and hard-to-describe wonderful “thing” that human hands can put into
jewelry.


#28

Hi

the cost of 4 waxes really effective It is time for speed & accuracy
& low cost CAD / CAM provide us all these we can make very perfect &
appropriate pieces with this process.

But one thing always remember : CAD is not replacement of an artisan
but it is very useful for an artisan It is facility for artisan.

so try to use your skills after CAD & Casting & make fine jewelry
for our Honorable clients.

Kapil Jain.


#29

Thank you to Bill Wismar for his wise advise. GIve it up and move
on. Amanda


#30
I think this IS the original concept orchid was founded on,
discussing what works and what does not work. We could not learn
and or share if everyone agreed on concepts that might not work. 

Well said, Bill.

As for being “past boring”… I am now finally finding this thread
really interesting. We are finally talking about two (maybe more,
soon) ACTUAL rings, not just a lot of claims and posturing.

To my own eye, the CAD ring is less pleasing, and it was interesting
to hear the analysis of the reasons. They fit with what I see, except
that I am unsure of the validity of Leonid’s very interesting idea
that jewelry (and presumably other art) benefits from or even
requires a tension that derives from its imperfections. In a ring
such as this, which by its nature is a repetition without variation,
I’m not convinced this is true.

I look forward to seeing refinements of this very valid attempt. It
shows a lot about what CAD/CAM can do, but is inconclusive by itself
about what it may NOT be able to do.

I do feel that we are indeed following the best tradition of Orchid,
though unfortunately the less-than-courteous exchanges also fit that
description.

Thanks, all!
Noel


#31

Noel, et all,

To pinpoint an error of. Leonids rationalization;

As a CAD jockey myself who does not use CAD To generate any jewelry
(I am still a beginner in jewelry). CAD does not restrict a designer
to perfect alignment, even though it does facilitate it. I can
manually place any element I want just as though it where done by
hand, CAD however has the facilities to place things nearly exact
(all computers have rounding errors, however, for daily concerns is
not a concern after all.) which by hand would be as far as I can
tell impossible without some other kind of tooling. I or anyother
CAD user does not have to use those facilities. Additionally, even
if one did use those facilities, there are other tools that can
effectively randomize (technically pseudorandom algorithms, a deep
topic in and of themselves) to give the characteristics that he
opines over.

Leonid for as brilliant as he is, and for excellent of an artisan as
he is, is attempting to defend a conclusion with what ever rational
he can find to fit said conclusion. Much of it is however week, if
not sad.

He is 100% right in thinking that CAD can’t do everything. Yet, show
me or any body a tool that can.

If, as he claims, that CAD cannot achieve this specific result, then
so what! His arguments are still fallacious. Hence the fools errand
argument posted earlier.

Hardest part of his diatribe, is that he constantly moves the
goalpost. Frommemory requirements for a curve, to quality of curves
to randomness to, alas the problem is in casting, not CAD itself
because anybody can make a pretty picture. One part gets shot down,
he just moves to another to another, then back to another that had
been shot down earlier. Therefore, he is attempting to use rational
to prove an already determined conclusion.

The crux of this challenge by his admission, is a limitation of
casting. Which CAD currently inherits. so he should be arguing
agains casting. Yet hedoes not, and rather spectacularly
rationalizes many a dubious claims when they suit him.

For arguments sake, let’s say that CAD is and forever will be unable
to produce such a work, in exact or in spirit. Does that mean that
the value of CAD is reduced to ZERO. Simply, no. Just as it would be
foolish to challenge anybody to reproduce that item with a lathe, or
a hammer, or a telescope (admitted, hyperbole on that last one)

Technology is a moving target. What it cannot accomplish today, does
not hold true for tomorrow. Such as one complaint about the 3D
printing end of itis that the resolution is not sufficient. That I
think is a somewhat legit argument. Or was. This is not a commercial
unit (I don’t think). Bit probably will be in The future. Regardless
it is NOT science fiction.

Personally, I love hand work. My hands are the reason I am perusing
this venture. I love and want to produce art. Given that, one cannot
forget thatjewelry is an industry, and industry has it’s own set of
challenges and pressures. CAD is no thee, magic bullet, or even A
magic bullet. It is just a bullet. It has it’s place alongside the
bench, not to replace it.

All the respect to those who can argue from the top of the mountain.
Say what you will; but, not everybody will fit up there. If you feel
the pressure, from technology as I am sure you do. Then just for a
moment think of what kind of pressures those who do not share that
tip of pinpoint real estateexperience.

I myself, have a long way to go before I can claim that I am a
jeweler or even an artist in the medium of metals. However, I am on
the path. CAD not required, and yet without disdain.

I have my eye on that peak. I know it is there.

Whew, that got longer than I intended.

Christopher Lund
Sol Seeker design jewelry


#32
Now for a serious question. This isn't entirely related to Leonid,
he just happened to bring it to the forefront of what passes for
my brain. 
Exactly how much light passes through a finger? 

Brian raised few points: interaction jewellery with light, is all
cast jewellery is bad, and the problem with CAD/CAM/casting process
is not CAD/CAM, but casting.

Let me take the last one first. Unless we are carving jewellery of
solid metal, CAD/CAM without casting is useless. Therefore CAD/CAM
inherits all the flaws present in casting. Second, CAD/CAM has number
of limitation of it’s own, at least at present time. I have seen
news recently that first functional computer was made based on carbon
nanotubes. That definitely raises possibility of machine based
intelligence, so in some future it will be possible for a software
to know as much as goldsmith.

Casting jewellery can be made to the very high standards of quality.
The problem is that it is much more expensive process than hand
fabrication. In Tiffany when presented with a design, we had a choice
of fabricating it or casting. For me fabricating was easier most of
the time and faster, other chose casting route. The process was very
much different from what is used nowadays.

Waxes were made to uniform thickness of 0.9mm. Parts receiving
stones were thicker and separate.

Wax was polished by sharp blade, no heat gun or torches. Number of
parts we as many as in fabricating.

Parts were cast larger than needed and fitted by hand. All outer
layer (casting skin) was removed by grinding.

Prior to that part was hammered to improve internal grain.
Everything was finished individually, polished, set with stones, and
assembled. That was the process to obtain high quality jewellery.
Nowadays however, casting used to cut manufacturing costs and employ
unskilled labour. I bet that word “quality” is not even used in
production shops.

Interaction jewellery and light deserves much more time that I have
today. Simply different gemstones interact differently. Taking
diamonds for example. Diamonds return light in two components, -
brilliance and scintillation. Most of light optimization of settings
is directed towards the later. Since adoption of oversized tables in
diamond cutting, it is more important than ever. Ajoure is not the
only light enhancing device, and in rings it serves different
function. Ajoure is incredibly important in earrings, as far as
light is concerned.

In rings, it is gallery that is the functional part to gather
ambient light and improve scintillation of diamonds.

In bright sunlight, gallery contribution is hardly noticeable, but
it comes into it’s full power in dimly lit restaurant at candlelight
tables. That is where commercial jewellery looks like it has been
set with pieces of coal, and jewellery with intelligently designed
gallery really shines.

Leonid Surpin
studioarete.com


#33
normally I create my Designs with 0.01mm -0.015mm spacing (about
the width of a 8.0 saw blade)... 

ding!.. ring that bell!


#34
In a ring such as this, which by its nature is a repetition without
variation, I'm not convinced this is true. 

The problem in showing how small variations affect appearance is how
to photograph it. I have acquired a microscope recently.

Yes, it may surprise few people but there was no choice. My eyes are
not as good as they used to be. The unintended benefit is that
microscope has dedicated video port, so it should be possible to show
the variations I am talking about. Let’s see what happens.

Leonid Surpin
studioarete.com


#35

I’m fairly new to this group and have found it entertaining,
informative and interesting - thanks everyone: I learn something
every time I log on.

However - I too have found some comments tedious and just plain
rude.

I don’t think anyone minds proper, constructive criticism: that’s
what we ask questions for. It’s the sneering, put-down, “you’re so
ignorant” kind of comments that are so rude.

Some folks need to remember that we ALL didn’t know squat once upon
a time.

Janet


#36

In a perfectly cut round brilliant the light that enters the stone
through the crown exits through the crown, and light that enters via
the pavilion does not come out via the crown. But that is only true
for perfectly cut brilliants.

The majority of diamonds have less than perfect geometry, so there
is some loss out the pavilion and some gain via the pavilion. In such
stones it is a benefit to have the pavilion open to the light.

As to cutting mise-?-jour in places where no light will reach, the
purpose of ajour? is not to let light in behind the stones but to
make the back of the piece beautiful and to lighten the piece by
removing extraneous metal. Also, nice, open lights behind the stones
make it much easier to clean the piece.

Regarding the piece as cast, the biggest fault, to my eye, was that
stones were picked that were too small for the setting. It seems
that larger stones could have been set, as it looks like there’s
plenty of meat in those prongs. This would have closed the gaps
between the stones and also lightened the look of the prongs, which
now look heavy and distract from the stones.

Elliot Nesterman


#37
Leonid is by no means the first person I've heard go to great
lengths to explain how they lightened up a setting to get the
maximum amount of light "through" the stone. Conveniently
forgetting that when worn, there is exactly *zero* visible light
passing through the finger it's on. (X-rays, Gamma rays, and cosmic
neutrino radiation yes, but anything we can see? No.) 

This has flummoxed me before too and I also questioned it once. I
don’t recall receiving any replies though, and still people go on
about letting light into the backs of stones. Obviously some magical
process that’s eluding us.

Helen
UK


#38
Light does not travel through the girdle of one diamond into the
next one. 

No how, no way, contrary to how light exits a diamond by the very
nature of why diamonds are faceted the way they are. Reflecting and
refracting light coming in the top, bouncing off the pavilion
facets, back through top of the diamond through the table and crown
facets.


#39

Speaking of eternity rings. I have one that is missing on diamond.
Can people tell me how I match a diamond and a good source for
purchasing such a match?

I’m a lapidary artist. I don’t usually deal with issues in stones
like this.

Derek Levin


#40
Hardest part of his diatribe, is that he constantly moves the
goalpost. Frommemory requirements for a curve, to quality of
curves to randomness to, alas the problem is in casting, not CAD
itself because anybody can make a pretty picture. One part gets
shot down, he just moves to another to another, then back to
another that had been shot down earlier. Therefore, he is
attempting to use rational to prove an already determined
conclusion. 

Nothing ever about my arguments was shot down. And if anyone is
moving goalpost it is CAD crowd. They are constantly trying to
redefine parameters of the argument, hoping to wiggle out of
admitting their inability to produce a single example of
CAD/CAM/casting omnipotence. Their latest attempt was and obvious
flap. While I can understand their fervent search for Deus Ex
Machina, let me assure you that it is not forthcoming.

The thrust of my argument aways has been the same.

CAD can only do what can be described mathematically. The argument
was expressed in different form, but it was done to try to get
through shallow thinking of some CAD defenders.

As I sad before CAD cannot escape responsibility of casting process
deficiencies, because without casting CAD/CAM is useless in
jewellery. It may be great in other applications, but not in
jewellery.

Another problem inherent to CAD itself is aesthetic. It cannot
produce artistic form, only mechanical one. This part of the argument
is not easy to explain. Think about computerized music. Keyboard can
be programed to play Chopin, and while sound may be satisfactory for
untrained ear, it will evacuate concert hall faster that a bomb
threat.

The argument that every component can be placed individually, coming
from CAD practitioner is quite a surprise. I am seriously questioning
that this person ever did any work in CAD.

Let me explain why. On the face of it, it is true. You can pick any
element of CAD drawing and place it anywhere. But by doing so, you
are running a risk of intersecting other elements this may be
invisible to you. There is a very high chance of completely ruining
model you working on, if you attempt to place things manually. The
whole thing of using CAD successfully is deriving on shape out of
another.

Few words about CAD curves. I shall use Eternity ring as an example.
Inner gallery edge (facing diamonds) consist of series of curves.
When I start shaping them, I have no idea of what they should be. I
file a little and look and file some more. I change what I do not
like and leave alone what I like. When I finished I look it over
again and make sure that all curves relate harmoniously to each
other. Keep in mind that different metals would require different
curves due to difference of reflectivity. That is the process of hand
fabricating. There is constant judging and correction process going
on.

In CAD curves have to be defined mathematically. The problem is that
there is no way to know, which curve will look best, or even
reasonably good. One works with screen, where no reflections, no
metal characteristics visible. It is almost a guarantee that what
looks good on screen, is not going to look good in metal.

In conclusion let me make another point. We live in time where
tremendous strides in technology have been made. That kind of give
false confidence that there are no limit to what can be done. While
it may be true in industry applications, aesthetics is quite another
matter. We ourselves do not yet understand what makes us like one
arrangement and reject another. Take iPhone and Galaxy. After losing
lawsuit, Samsung slightly change outline of it’s devices. And the
difference hits you in the face like a wet towel. Apple has achieved
harmony in proportions and outline which is difficult to surpass and
so far nobody could. But than again, if you like computerized music,
and difference between iPhone and Galaxy do not offend you
sensibilities, than maybe CAD is for you.

Leonid Surpin
studioarete.com