Actually I didn’t quite say that- “If it were really worthwhile,
school ring companies like Balfour would be doing it.” You seem to
have interpreted my statement in a different light.
Coming in at the end of the thread he decloaked and said…
Balfour might do it but I don’t think they have the need.(I used
to work for T&C) Anyone who can accept the lower quality setting
job can make use of it. It is WORTHWHILE if done properly.
What I was saying was that if the process was really reliable, it
would be widely used within the industry. Yes- it can be used with
certain stones either genuine or synthetic- that can withstand the
heat and thermal shock, and IF you want to do the casting
yourself, or have a close relationship with a casting house that
really loves challenges. In cases where it could be a real labor
saving technique like pave or invisible setting it would be a
technical nightmare to set up properly in a production house. I can
picture some of the employees in RI factories hand loading diamond
mele into rubber molds prior to waxing. Probably wouldn’t improve
employee turnover.
The clients might not appreciate the concept that it was not hand
done. That is, after all, part of the charm of handmade jewellry.
And sure it would be worthwhile if properly done; OR it could turn
out just plain ugly. As someone commented, areas behind the stone
would remain unpolished.
What started this section of the thread was my comment:
"For some reason, I have trouble understanding why it is important to cast stones into a casting. Remove the stone, cast the piece, set the stone. It will probably look better, and you won't go through the agony of wondering if the stone will survive the casting process. The setting time is shorter than the time it takes to dig a casting out of cooled investment. The stones that will survive the abuse of casting will probably survive setting."
Rick Hamilton
Richard D. Hamilton
Martha’s Vineyard
USA
Fabricated 14k, 18k, and platinum Jewelry
wax carving, modelmaking, jewelry photography