Back to Ganoksin | FAQ | Contact

Necklace bezel settings turn around


#1

Hi folks,

I wonder if any of you have some suggestions? I often make necklaces
more than I make pendants. They usually consist of a number of
handmade bezel settings which I connect to each other with jump
rings. The problem is that when the recipient wears the necklace,
some of the bezel settings want to turn round, thus showing the back
rather than the front set with the stone. Particularly any settings
that are in the are of the clavicles. Any slight movement and they
turn round. Is there a way to avoid this? I wondered if making a
larger base for the settings, ie the backplate extending beyond the
bezel walls for cabochon settings and adding such an extension on
open- backed bezel settings for faceted gems. My only worry is that
I don’t always want that look. Any advice would be greatly
appreciated - thanks.

Helen Hill
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk


#2

From a design standpoint this might not be what you want, but you
could have two points of attachment on each side (ie, two jump rings,
space at least a small distance apart).

If you are using a single jump ring on each side of each component,
with another jump ring connecting the units, you could get a little
more resistance to flipping by increasing the gauge of the
wire/decreasing the inner diameter of the ring.


#3
The problem is that when the recipient wears the necklace, some of
the bezel settings want to turn round, thus showing the back rather
than the front set with the stone. 

Helen, I’m assuming you solder a jump ring to each side of the
bezel, at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock, on a centerline of the setting.
If, instead, you attach the rings at 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock, the
bottom of the setting will be heavier, so the thing won’t flip over.
It doesn’t need to be very much off the centerline of the bezel, but
at least a little, so it has a preferred way to hang.

Peter


#4

The problem may be center of gravity and/or jump ring shape. If the
connection is at say 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock, yeah they’re likely to
flip. Try 10 and 2. Big round JRs will increase the flipping
tendency, because the JR may be pressing against the skin and want
to deflect, taking the bezel with it. Try smaller or oval JRs. You
might also fiddle with the gauge of wire relative to the hole it goes
thru. A tight fit can transmit the torque right to the next bezel.


#5

I’ve seen companies that set a stone on each side of the bezel, so
then it doesn’t matter if it flips over.


#6
The problem is that when the recipient wears the necklace, some of
the bezel settings want to turn round, thus showing the back rather
than the front set with the stone. 

Helen, that’s a pretty common problem, and there’s times when it’s
just the nature of the beast. Two things that might help - many
people don’t really know how to make a necklace, so they make a
bracelet in a necklace length. I saw a big tennis necklace made that
way once and boy was it an expensive fiasco. Look at a clock - I
can’t visualize a 24hr clock, sorry (UK). Top is twelve - 1/4 down
is 3, bottom is 6, 1/4 up is 9. Bracelets are strung in-line, so
they would be at 3 and 9, straight across. If you string a necklace
like that it will usually spin. If you lay your parts out on a
tabletop in a necklace shape, you’ll see it forms a circle with the
important part facing frontwards. Bracelets have the important part
facing outwards. To make a necklace hang well means that it should
be linked at 10 and 2 (or more), not 9 and 3 - kind of a rabbit ear
arrangement. If you have long rectangles, don’t put links on-center
on the ends, put them on the upper edge. Then arrange it again and
your links will form a circle, or generally so, as a necklace should
be, and shouldn’t spin or not very much. Center of gravity and the
circular shape of a necklace… If you used actual hinges, just
for illustration, on a bracelet they would align east-west, and the
bracelet wraps around the wrist, stones out. On a necklace it would
be north-south, and also not in-line, and the necklace will
naturally flow in the other dimension, stones up.

The second thing is to tighten up your linkages - two links, one on
each element, will never spin. the more slack and length between
them, the more slack in the necklace. You can’t always do that
because of the overall design, but the tighter the link, the tighter
the piece.

You can never battle gravity, you need to understand how to roll
with it.

http://www.donivanandmaggiora.com


#7

Helen -

Having made both neckchains and pendants, I think there are several
possible solutions:

If you are hand-making a chain -

The right-handedness or left-handedness of the maker gets transfered
to the chain. Thus, the pendant is easily motivated to expose its
backside. The fix for this is to modify the bail and/or tweak some of
the necklace links so all conflicting tensions are evened out.

If the bail is to be modified, usually it needs to be wider, or of
thicker material.

If your bail is a jumpring, try using two or three jumprings
instead. This simulates a wide bail, and counteracts any tensions in
each ring of the bail.

However, I’ve made a chain that twisted the pendant, even though
that pendant behaved well on a commercical chain. My handmade chain
introduced a twisting moment that is not easily overcome with just
one jump ring connection.

My opinion of the chain would be that I would have to break it into
two equal pieces. The pendant would have to have ‘rabbit ears’ or
similar bail, so that each free end of the chain could attach to one
side of the bail. Next is a process of looking at how the pendant
rests…is it flat, or is there a twist? Flat, you are OK. If a
twist, is it fixed with a jumpring (approx 90 degree input), or
should you tweak a link of the necklace (approx 45 degree input)?

I apologize to those who find the explanation obtuse. To those with
an acute sense of the metal: Go For It!

Kelley


#8

Helen, would it work to have double jump rings (side by side, not
linked together) instead of just one?


#9

You can also replace the jump rings with diamond shaped pieces of
silver folded over and the narrow ends soldered to the bezel.

That’s what I ended up doing for most stuff. The dual ring technique
works too.

RC


#10

Hi John,

I saw a big tennis necklace made that way once and boy was it an
expensive fiasco. 

Yes I’d worked that one out - the orientation is completely
different.

To make a necklace hang well means that it should be linked at 10
and 2 (or more), not 9 and 3 

This is exactly my problem I think, as a kind lady pointed out
offlist. My stupidity is that I been making the central links more
10 and 2 so they hang correctly, but then the ones that would lie
vertically, going up towards the collar bones, I’ve been making 9
and 3 - doh! If I do all of them off centre then yes I can see that
they would be less likely to flip.

You can't always do that because of the overall design, but the
tighter the link, the tighter the piece. 

This sort of contradicts Neilthejeweler’s response. Neil said “A
tight fit can transmit the torque right to the next bezel.” I’ll try
the 10 and 2 idea when soldering on my jump rings and hopefully
that’ll help.

Thanks.

Helen
UK


#11

Make sure the eyes, jump rings, or attachment points on each element
are above the centre of gravity. Each element in the necklace must
find it’s own hanging position by gravity alone. The depth of each
setting may play a part but it must hang right wherever it is in the
necklace.

Alastair


#12

Hi Julia,

From a design standpoint this might not be what you want, but you
could have two points of attachment on each side (ie, two jump
rings, space at least a small distance apart). 

Thanks for the suggestion. I actually quite like the idea and it
will give a different look. I’m assuming that the outside links would
need to be a little larger/longer so that the necklace can lie flat.

Helen


#13
I've seen companies that set a stone on each side of the bezel, so
then it doesn't matter if it flips over. 

It’s worth a thought, although it could get expensive! Easier to do
with cabochons but not so easy with faceted stones. I tend to like
to use a mixture of the two types of stone in one piece.

Helen
UK


#14

Hi Peter,

The 10 and 2 o’clock solution is proving to be a popular one. I
think that’s exactly my problem. For some reason I had considered
that with the centre link so that that would lie flat but had
stupidly not thought to do that with the vertical elements of the
necklace and had indeed soldered them at 9 and 3.

Thanks very much - that should solve my problem nicely.

Helen
UK


#15
the tighter the link, the tighter the piece. 

This sort of contradicts Neilthejeweler’s response. Neil said “A
tight fit can transmit the torque right to the next bezel.”

No, Helen, it doesn’t contradict - we are both right, as usual ;} A
tight fit will transfer torque, but if the necklace is well designed
around the center of gravity, that works to your advantage. If
you’re trying to battle gravity, then the torque will create havoc,
but nothing will help anyway. The essential thing, as I and others
have said, is that anything that hangs - necklace, pendant and even
brooches, must hang naturally. Usually you can do a mockup - string
it up and see how it hangs before it’s set. If the settings face the
ground or twist or whatever, putting a stone in will only make it
worse. Then if links need to be moved that can be done before
everything is finished…

http://www.donivanandmaggiora.com


#16

Hi Kelley,

The right-handedness or left-handedness of the maker gets
transfered to the chain. 

I don’t think this is my problem. I’m convinced that it’s what most
people have said, ie that I’ve been soldering my jump rings onto my
necklace elements at 9 and 3 o’clock instead of 10 and 2 o’clock.

If your bail is a jumpring, try using two or three jumprings
instead. This simulates a wide bail, and counteracts any tensions
in each ring of the bail. 

I’m talking about a necklace, not a pendant. I don’t have issues
with pendants, as I prefer more substantial bails. I don’t do jump
ring bails - I think they always look a bit weedy - unless it’s a
stonking great big chunky D-wire jump ring bail - I sometimes do
those.

Thanks for some interesting thoughts though. Some things worth
thinking about next time I do make a handmade chain.

Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk


#17

Hi Renaissancewiz,

would it work to have double jump rings

Yes, I think that would work. I’m going to try both your suggestion
of double jr’s and also single ones soldered at 10 and 2 o’clock
rather than 9 and 3 o’clock.

Thanks to everyone who has offered suggestions to my necklace
problem.

Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk


#18

Hi Rick,

You can also replace the jump rings with diamond shaped pieces of
silver folded over and the narrow ends soldered to the bezel. 

Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you mean. I can’t picture it.

Helen
UK


#19

Helen,

Another possibility, is to use Tubing for the bail.

Hugs,
Terrie


#20

It’s been my experience that making the bases of the settings larger
in order to prevent “flipping” is not very successful unless the
bases are quite large, which usually detracts from the design. The
most common cause of the tendency to “flip” is caused by the points
of suspension being on or near a line extending horizontally through
the center of gravity of the setting (bezel). The most effective
solution for me has been to connect the settings at points as far
above the center of gravity as possible, allowing the greater weight
to be suspended below. If you have a findings catalog available,
look at the circular slide type bezels. You will notice that the
holes in the bezels are located above the centers of the circles.

From personal experience, I have found “flipping” to be a very
annoying problem on occasion so now, whenever I am doing a necklace
I make a few trials with the settings before assembly, hopefully
solving the problem before the necklace is completed.

Hope this helps,
Don Kenney