I would like to do some more organic settings in my rings. I am very
into Georgian Rings and that time period.
Here is an example of a ring style circa 1700’s that gives a good
idea of what I would like to do.
My question is would this be something that looks like it is done in
wax or hand fabricated? And either way. what is an overall
explanation of how it was done?
All of the techniques I have read about or have been taught are
modern. and not at all like this.
Any help you all can give me would be so much appreciated!
That looks like it’s just a bezel that’s been worn away by 250+ years
of wear. I’d be willing to bet there’s probably shellac under the
stone too. That’s why it still there with most of the bezel worn
away.
Good luck finding any diamonds with that kind of a cut: it really is
a very medieval sort of ‘do the major cleavage planes’ cut. Nobody’s
going to cut a diamond large enough to notice with that kind of a cut
these days unless you buy the rough and have it done yourself.
I’m partial to antique setting styles myself, but I’m not sure
resurrecting this one is going to be either easy or profitable.
I seem to share common taste as you have - I’m fond of that sort of
style, too.
I presume the basic setting strategy is pretty simple in this example
ring.
The main issue seems like how to shape the holes snug where stones
sit so that they fit the irregular shape of such old cut shapes, but
it can be achieved by combined use of round or bud shaped burs and
some engraving tools. A matter of observing stone shapes, and
diligent, careful, patient works - hard to imagine there’s a
mysterious magic. After closing bezels, I guess you could smooth
them out by engraving tools, again.
Willing to know if there’s some good knack!
Cheers, Akiko
Well, Sue, some things never change. It’s modern as can be, it’s
just old
How I’d make that ring ishow it likely was made to begin with - the
shank is just a wire made into a circle. The top is a fat piece of
(probably) silver that’s been pierced and cut for the stones and the
edges, and then soldered together and set. Much of what you see in
that piece is two centuries of wear - there’s no way you can
duplicate that.
in my opinion this is a kind of bezel setting technique adapted to
the countour of those particular stones, I mean burnishing or
hammering the metal around the stone, maybe more burnishing than
hammering I don’t think craftsmen around 1700’s could think
about stone-in-wax casting, but one never knows. The tiny stones at
the ends are set simply by a very rough kind of bead setting
technique.
Notwithstanding the wear and tear the ring in the picture shows,
that piece does not look like a good example of craftmanship, even
for that setting techniques tend to be rather simple, the
goldsmithing and know-how those pieces showed was simply brilliant,
nothing to do with the afore mentioned ring.
in my opinion this is a kind of bezel setting technique adapted to
the countour of those particular stones, I mean burnishing or
hammering the metal around the stone, maybe more burnishing than
hammering I don’t think craftsmen around 1700’s could think about
stone-in-wax casting, but one never knows. The tiny stones at the
ends are set simply by a very rough kind of bead setting technique.
Notwithstanding the wear and tear the ring in the picture shows, that
piece does not look like a good example of craftmanship, even for
that time. I have seen jewellery pieces thal old and more, and
although the setting techniques used tend to be rather simple, the
goldsmithing and know-how those pieces showed was simply brilliant,
nothing to do with the afore mentioned ring.
I agree with the “collet” setting terminology- that’s all they are-
the piece though is decorated with piercing work. a collet setting
is equal to saying bezel setting, but used more widely in British
terminology. same procedure: wire or sheet or stepped wire wrapped
around the stone(+ the height of the material x pi to get a correct
length), cleaned, checked for accuracy then soldered together and
further attached to a shank in this case. Collet is technically a
holder- collets on flex shafts or Dremel tools is a good example of
a non-decorative collet- the pieces referenced on the Etsy link
demonstrate a basic collet setting decorated with wire work…
You can get stones that are rose cut still- not hard to find at all (
If you have lapidary equipment and diamond containing pastes it’s
fairly straightforward to do yourself from rough diamond material)
buying stones that have been taken out and stone’s changed to more
modern cuts from other jeweller’s may be less time intensive and a
bit cheaper as they are less desirable today. rer
This is pretty standard stuff for the time. They are simply old Rose
cut diamonds (they have flat backs) set in silver. white gold wasn’t
around then so they tended to use silver as a white metal. They are
just basic rubovers (bezel set, collet set) They quite often foil
backed them to make them look brighter. They are closed backs not
pierced out. Just look out for some old Rose cuts and off you go. If
you want it to looked worn out you can do it but I wouldn’t recommend
it you might lose a stone!! I do remember hearing a story once most
probably just an urban myth and everyone has heard it sometime in
their career. The apprentice was given a job to remake a ring exactly
the same as the one he was given. That is what he did. He did a very
good job but the only problem was it had worn out claws (prongs) and
shank just like the one he copied !! Whether it is true I don’t know
but it’s a good story
I think that she is not a jeweler, so don’t take her terminology too
seriously. The earrings are assembled from old settings put onto
newer cup backs, with heaven knows what kind of solder!
