Just what is fine jewelry?

Jewelry Discussion
161 
Hah! I was just about to post her name as an addition to my list!
I would also include Petra Class, Abrasha and Jim Binnion.

Yes indeed, they were on my lost list of eye candy! Thank you.

Helen
UK

162 
Wow. I've seen and admired David's work in publications. Don's is
new to me. Impeccable. This thread has carried on sooo long that I
have found it tedious, but I was compelled to follow the links that
Cooperman posted. His work is also impeccable!

I looked at his work, and I disagree with the assessment above.
Whatever it is, it is not jewellery. Execution may qualify these
pieces as metalsmith wares, but falls short from jewellery
requirements.

Leonid Surpin

163

I just joined Ganoksin and saw this interesting threat. I did not
have time to read all posts but what I can say about fine jewelry and
A Jour (or ajourage of a jewelry item):

1- Fine jewelry: Is jewelry that has a) genuine design b) high
quality of finishing of the metal c) high quality of setting d) high
quality of gemstones (polish, cut etc) e) high quality of technique.
Any jewellery missing any of these points will not qualify as fine
jewelry IMHO.

2- When possible, ALWAYS make jewelry with a jour opening. A jour
won’t improve how the stones will sparkle in some cases and all this
talk about light and more opening is a bit hyped in my opinion. A
jour will simply make the item look nicer, full stop (with
exceptions). If you make a bracelet with a closed back, or open back
won’t make much of a difference when the bracelet is used. Simply
put, the bracelet will touch the hand and those holes made for
"better light reflection "won’t matter much. Besides, a drilling or a
drilling a jour style, will be the same but ajour will make the
jewelry look “fine” and beautiful when inspected (after all,
jewellery is supposed to look beautiful from all aspects). The
openings from the back on an earring will matter a lot of course
because light will pass through and give better reflection and on top
of this, the ajourage will be seen and it will of course make the
item look nicer.

This is what I have to say about fine jewelry and a jour. Thanks

Woody S.

164 
Yup we have obsessive compulsive disorder. We take pride in the
fact that our stuff looks just a pretty on the inside as the
outside whether or not is a traditional or modern design. We may be
dinosaurs, but that' OK with me and our customers too.

I like you folks.

This whole discussion of fine jewellery reminds me of past stuff
about craft / vs jellwery. I’m not good at copper wire and beads, K
gold and stones are fine and no terror, Pt and I don’t have the righ
tools. If I have done my best and the client loves it then it is my
call alone to call it ‘Fine’ I could repeat the same piece and do
better but that is usally a $$ option.

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

165 
for crafts people and there individual skills and
interpretations,with are ability and freedom to access a
historical wealth of reference material and skills through the web
this alone is a huge factor in creating a new definition.

I enjoyed Ness’s rather passionate posting, and I just pulled out
the quoteas being, I think, representative. Not personal - I liked
what she said, overall.

Lone Ranger and Tonto are in a shack, surrounded by vicious, blood
thirsty Apache indians. Lone Ranger looks at Tonto and says, “Well,
Tonto old pal. Looks like we’re done for.” Tonto looks at Lone
Ranger and says, “What you mean “WE”, kimo sabe?”

Goo posted the very definition of “fine” today with his bird
pistols. If anybody interested wants to “redefine” jewelry, I’d
suggest you start by mailing Sotheby’s, Christies, Harry Winston,
Boucheron, Chopard - hey, even Kurt Wayne. Second wave would be
everybody in the world who wants to buya piece of jewelry. They’re
all anxious to hear about your new definition.

The day that somebody said, “that’s good enough” and “we don’t
actually need to learn how to make jewelry, we’re ARTISTS.” Is the
day the American jewelry industry began going into decline. My sense
of standards suits me, my collegues and my clients very well, TYVM.

166 
What I want to hear hasn't been said yet ;-)

Ok, I’ll bite…what is it that you want to hear?

Mrs. Terry Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts, LLC

167

I have jewellery catalogs from the 1900’s describing the components
as ‘Finest’; and the end product as ‘Fine’.

Perhaps back then, ‘Fine’ was the sum total of the finest
components.

Today is a world apart but the basic values remain the same in a
different format.

Alastair

168

“If anybody interested wants to “redefine” jewelry, I’d suggest you
start by mailing Sotheby’s, Christies, Harry Winston, Boucher on,
Chopard - hey, even Kurt Wayne. Second wave would be everybody in
the world who wants to buy a piece of jewelry. They’re all anxious
to hear about your new definition.” I completely agree with the
Donivans ! The problem with this whole discussion is there are too
many who are still trying and have not gained notoriety who want to
redefine " fine jewelry " so that what they do can be labeled
"fine".

There is too much focus on "wow I am such an avant-gard cool Artist
my cool different stuff has to be called “fine jewelry” or I will
have to be depressed and go sit in smelly rotten cake batter

169 
Some even use lathes and mills to work these materials. "Creative"
finishes are employed to conceal that piece has been so tortured
during fabrication, that no amount of polishing can save it. So
"creative finish" to the rescue.

So lathes and mills are not acceptable tools in the production of
fine jewelry…what about flexible shafts and polishing motors
(lathes)? Are only polished surfaces acceptable?

We have been searching for established standards to define fine
jewelry but it seems that Leonid has been reading from that manifesto
for the durationof this thread including objective definitions of
what “ugly” is. And to think that I have considered much of Lalique’s
work beautiful… Now my eyes have been opened.

170 
The ability to fabricate, meeting all the requirements and wrapping
it all in one package, - that what separates a goldsmith from any
other craftsman.

Hopefully I’ll have the last word, not because I want it but because
this topic could go to bed. It’s not lost on me that this sort of
thread brings out a crowd that only posts arguments here on Orchid -
I don’t mean Leonid, for once. It seems I am a favorite target,
which I guess should be flattering, except in real life I avoid
quarrelsome people like the plague.

I said it long ago - goldsmithing has a common language. It just
does, it’s a fact, it comes, like all languages, from it’s roots and
history. Instead of arguing about it, why don’t you just actually
learn it? What a concept.

171 
I looked at his work, and I disagree with the assessment above.
Whatever it is, it is not jewellery.

I would love to hear your definition of jewelry.

172 
A jour won't improve how the stones will sparkle in some cases and
all this talk about light and more opening is a bit hyped in my
opinion.

The thing about azure is that nothing should be left to chance.
Simply by piercing azure without taking into account distances
between the elements, height of settings, - probably will not result
in much improvement. However, it is not the fault of technique, but
the application of it. Optics are based on angles. Correct angle at
the wrong distance becomes wrong angle. Some goldsmiths overlook this
simple fact.

Leonid Surpin

173

This thread has been interesting and the definitions and
explanations of what makes “fine” jewelry is subjective.

The questions begs, “what is NOT fine jewelry?”

Karen Christians
www.cleverwerx.com

174

Woody S.

I just copied this from your post "I just joined Ganoksin and saw
this interesting threat."

I am sure you meant “thread”, but this whole thread of fine jewelry
has become a “threat” to my sanity and wanting different interesting
posts made.

'Nuff sed…this Thread has become a “Dinosaur”.
Rose Marie Christison

175 
I looked at his work, and I disagree with the assessment above.
Whatever it is, it is not jewellery. Execution may qualify these
pieces as metalsmith wares, but falls short from jewellery
requirements.

Leonid, perhaps you’re being misled by the nature of photos over
actual pieces. Hold Don’s work in your hand, look closely and see how
they work as jewelry. They are indeed wonderful pieces of jewelry,
even if the glass material isn’t itself a precious gem. In his hands,
they become gems, and I can assure you that they work wonderfully as
jewelry to be worn for personal adornment, for fashion accessory, for
statement of status and wealth and sophistication or whatever else
people wish to wear jewelry for. But Don’s work is an example of the
sort of thing where the real pieces in person are much more
impressive than the photos, and that’s saying a lot, as Don’s photos
are already rather good. But to say these fall short of meeting
jewelry requirements suggests to me that the photos are not
communicating the real nature of the pieces to you. Either that, or
you have excessively restrictive definitions of what jewelry is and
needs to be in order to be considered “fine”. These may not be the
sort of work you choose to produce or wear, but I can assure you from
personal experience with the work, that these are exquisite pieces in
terms of design, execution, and functionality.

Peter

176

I’m enjoying the last part of this thread with links to “fine
jewelry.” Like many of you, I have my favorite artists bookmarked.
As I looked through them for what I would consider fine jewelry,
only about 10% made the cut, 70% consisted of almost-fine jewelry,
and 20% other. Several have already been posted, but here are others
that I consider worthy of note.

One additional thing I realized is that many of the fine and
almost-fine jewelers have very annoying websites to navigate.
Congratulations to any of you who haven’t succumbed to the
artsy-fartsy website…

http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1ib
http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1ic

http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1if

http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1ih

Jamie

177

I second what Leonid just said. When it comes to fine jewelry,
nothing beats watches in terms of precision and craftsmanship. I
would put watches in the jewelry/objects category because they are
not only jewelry but also very intricate fine mechanical objects.

Woody S.

178

Hi Maam,

Ok, I'll bite...what is it that you want to hear?

I wanted to hear a definitive definition of “fine jewellery”, which
I sort of knew there isn’t one, but the world is a colourful and
strange place, so I was wondering if there was a despotic country out
there that “had” written a standard. :wink:

Regards Charles A.

179

Hi Guys,

Asked another person today about “fine jewellery”… I know this is
going on a bit, but I thought this definition interesting enough to
share.

Quote my teacher :

“I was taught that fine jewellery was platinum jewellery only,
everything was well defined, sharp edges are sharp, the filigree is
the finest, piercings are flawless, back bars are pierced, and when
the piece is turned over the unseen side is just as detailed and
interesting as the side that is seen… a good example of this is
Cartier when they were doing Art Deco. Having a high polish, and
using only natural rubies, emeralds and/or diamonds”.

I’m now exploring Cartier Art Deco pieces… and they are pretty
smick.

Regards Charles A.

180 
I wanted to hear a definitive definition of "fine jewellery",
which I sort of knew there isn't one, but the world is a colourful
and strange place, so I was wondering if there was a despotic
country out there that "had" written a standard. ;-)

I bet AAFES has a standard written out.

Elaine
who wonders how many angels can fit on the head of a pin