I think you must take the value of the stones into
consideration when pricing the work.
I agree, James. What I said was that the job shouldn't be based on
the value of the stones. I never said it shouldn't be taken into
While I have never worked with stones of this caliber I would
certainly want to spend more time making sure the mechanical
aspects of the design will adequately support and protect such a
group of gems, insuring the settings are perfect before setting the
stones and finally the lability assumed for setting such a stone.
I'm not saying that my work is perfect, but my view is to spend as
much time as required to do as you mentioned with every job, no
matter how valuable or inexpensive the components. That is what I
meant by "top-notch work." I don't believe you feel that less
expensive stones aren't worth taking the same time and effort as
high-end stones. I would assume you built your own reputation on
giving each and every one of your pieces the same consideration and
attention to detail, no matter the constituents. Again, that is what
I meant by "top-notch work."
Surely these must all go into the pricing of a ring that will
sport what sounds like well over $100,000 worth of diamonds. I
think this can not be considered a routine ring casting job.
"Routine ring casting job" was a poor choice of words on my part,
but it does speak to my view of every job getting the same
attention. That is what serves as "routine" for me.
My response was intended to be helpful to Karen, who wanted to know
if $2,200 was too much to have an heirloom ring reconditioned by a
store she claimed does top-notch work. I maintain that the price
shouldn't be based on the value of the stones (meaning that it
probably won't pay to shop for a cheaper deal), and if the store in
question really does do "top-notch" work, I'd still call it a fair
James in SoFl