[Tidbits] Royal Pave

After setting was completed, he took a flat graver and shaved off
all the beads. The stones were still holding. It was done to show that
beads do not hold stones. The stones are held by seat deformation,
created by the process of raising the bead. The bead itself is for
decoration only.

What worries me about a statement like the above is that somewhere a
young Orchid reader who is learning setting uses it as being factual.

I wish to correct this, if I may.

  1. If one takes a flat engraver ( even if it were completely flat,
    which is seldom the case ) and one cut off the beads, what remains is
    a micro lip of metal that holds the stone in place. It feels as if
    the stone is ‘stuck’ in the seat when pushed from the back.

However, it can easily be removed, using a brass pusher from the
back.

  1. The beads, and only the beads, hold the stone when correctly set.

  2. No properly pave set stone is held in by seat deformation, ever.
    Any person that pushes on a stone with a graver or beading tool or a
    pusher so hard as to deform the seat will surly destroy that stone.
    One has only to think of emerald to understand the consequences.

  3. While there are certainly decorative beads in pave setting, the
    actual beads that are raised around the stone are there for the
    purpose of holding the stone in place.

The decorative purpose is secondary.

These are objective facts which I can verify with photography,
should anyone desire me to do so.

A few things here folks. Thanks to one of my readers I did a search
for Royal Pave on google which indicated 2,750,000 links. Don’t know
if they all speak of the royal pave to which I refer… but it’s
interesting. Obviously quite a few know the term and its connections.

Also… in one of my recent posts I included the URL to my diamond
setting site. Alas… I made a typo and ended the URL with.com
instead of.net. The correct URL is:

http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/8b

Go there and click on Royal Pave Ring and you will see a sample of
something I did in royal pave. The image is only fair… which brings
me to the next segment.

I know this is going to come back and bite me–but I am willing to
have a representative of one of you folks–a representative of your
choosing I may add (one who understands pave when he sees it and who
has a pretty good camera) to call me or email me and make an
appointment which would allow me to visit him and I will let him
take a picture of a royal pave piece (not the ring) I did and keep in
stock to show one and all what it looks like as well as letting me
have a copy for my own uses. Please keep this down to only one
representative… I am not geared to accomodating hordes. This
person has to have ID from within the industry and offer means by
which I can verify his identity. He also has to be located in
Manhattan. I prefer the representative–however you choose him–to be
introduced to me by someone within the Ganoksin group who knows me as
this would give me an easy primary means to verify his veracity.
Hopefully this will bring closure to this episode.

I want to end with one final statement. Simply because one has not
heard of something… or because one is unable to duplicate the
process without learning it properly… or because one is unable to
envision it… that does not mean it does not exist. It took me a
long long time to perfect the technique… and many many hours in
solitude late at night. I did it because I wanted to offer something
most did not have.

To quote the beginning of an old song: “They all laughed at
Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round…” Suspend
disbelief folks. The rewards are enormous.

The Cooper Hewitt link has a fabulous video, the center one, on
invisibly set stones by Van Cleef and Arpels. It's not only very
fascinating, it may even clear up some of the variances between
channel, mystery and pave for those interested. 

When I was in Paris, I went several times to Van Cleef store, trying
to convince the clerk to show me the shop, unsuccessfully I may say.
Invisible setting has been an obsession of mine for many years. And
this video confirmed what I always suspected that all tutorials on
invisible setting, all of them were done on computer, is simply BS.
Now we know the truth.

You win a prize for the best video I have ever seen. Naturally, my
videos are excluded. If you email me your address, I shall send the
prize to you.

Leonid Surpin

and i sometimes wonder why you bother with the replys to these
silly arguments but thanks anyway.. 

the honest answer is I have no idea. Something about the subject of
goldsmithing that is very motivating. Someone said, do not remember
who, that in the fire of the argument the truth shall be born.

Leonid Surpin

I want to end with one final statement. Simply because one has not
heard of something... or because one is unable to duplicate the
process without learning it properly... or because one is unable
to envision it... that does not mean it does not exist. It took me
a long long time to perfect the technique... and many many hours in
solitude late at night. I did it because I wanted to offer
something most did not have. 

I cannot speak for others, but I am not interested in organizing a
delegation. This is silly. I am sure that nobody questioning your
skill set. I am questioning your tendency to hype thing up. Royal
Pave, as you call it, it is a marketing term. It is not a technical
description.

Another thing is quite obvious is that you questioning yourself. That
is why you feel the need to name your work in exalted terms. There
are a lot of folks who can do great pave. They do not call it Royal or
anything. They simply call it pave and res ipsa loquitur (the thing
speaks for itself).

To finish this, I also would like to point out, that your manners of
arguing leave much to be desired. Instead of addressing the issue, you
attack the messenger. You seem to be an expert in ad hominem. Even in
your last post, you imply that people disagree with you because they
cannot imagine, or not capable of, or not upper echelon craftsmen,
and etc… And what is really fascinating that instead of all this
venom, a single descent picture would be enough, but for some reason
you don’t have any.

Leonid Surpin

I know it works fine on paper, but I am still struggling to
understand the following: Since I need to put my graver some
place, that leaves me only with the direction towards 2 stones. 

And therein lies the miscommunication. One does NOT push the graver
from the triangle area towards the narrow space between two stones
(which would be the normal practice in “multi-bead” pave.) Rather,
one pushes the graver from between two stones, towards the center of
the triangle. The initial placement of the graver tip is the tricky
part, since one needs to catch a little metal, but not press upon the
stone itself, which would risk chipping it. One is pushing towards
the center of the triangle, not away from it, starting by catching
the graver tip into the slender web of metal between the stones, and
pushing more and more metal as one proceeds towards the center
triangle and that web widens as one moves away from the space between
two stones. Thus a single center bead is formed, using a bead raising
motion from three sides (from the points inwards). This does not form
three beads, only three sides to the same central bead.

Peter

And therein lies the miscommunication. One does NOT push the
graver from the triangle area towards the narrow space between two
stones (which would be the normal practice in "multi-bead" pave.)
Rather, one pushes the graver from between two stones, towards the
center of the triangle. 

Yes, I got it. But consider the following:

we start at narrow space between 2 diamonds and pushing towards the
center. The question is where the metal is going to go. The answer
is, in the direction of least resistance, and that would be to the
sides. So, in essence, we created 2 deformation in diamond seats. You
calling it compacting the corner, I call it raising 2 beads
perpendicular to the direction of the graver. By repeating it 3
times, from every corner, we will create 6 deformations in diamond
seats, 2 per stone, which will merge into one due to constrained
space. You will have a large bead in the center, but it is not what
holding the stones.

I don’t do it this way simply because why should I make 3 cuts, when
I can do only 1. That is all I am saying.

Leonid Surpin

this video confirmed what I always suspected that all tutorials on
invisible setting, all of them were done on computer, is simply
BS. Now we know the truth. 

I too found that video enlightening. (the visual portion, at least.
Some of the narration was, shall we say, a bit “hokey”…) It
explains well (without actually bothering to do so) why the invisible
setting done by Van Cleef, Cartier, and perhaps other firms of
similar repute and historical association with invisible setting,
seems to be of a totally different caliber in terms of look and long
term durability, than much of what is seen done today. The notion of
making rails into which the stones slide in sideways (the video
called them “drawers”) makes much sense, and would be far more secure
than the way much of the modern stuff is done.

However, I’d caution against assuming all tutorials are BS, only
that they may not be showing this most excellent method. There’s no
particular reason why an instructional video has to be showing the
best or right way to do a thing, and I suspect the BS videos you
refer to simply show the more common and cheaper methods often found
done today, rather than being done on a computer or otherwise being
faked. There is little doubt in my mind that most of the invisible
setting done today is not done in the painstaking way shown in the
video, but rather is done by somewhat quicker, and less secure means.
I’ve seen too much of such shoddy and fragile invisible setting to
question that, and those pieces I’m thinking of did not have the sort
of careful, substantial, and durable “rails” or “drawers” shown in
that video. Which would be why so much of such work finds stones
loose if one sizes a ring, or so much as sneezes in it’s general
direction.

In the end, though, just as with a number of other general setting
styles, I’d say there are likely more methods of getting to the end
look of invisible setting than most of the craftspeople who do it,
are likely to admit to. I suspect some is done as shown in the Van
Cleef video. Some other work which may be equally durable which I’ve
seen (I’m guessing that the method based on what I saw when repairing
the piece I’m thinking about) may be made possible by laser welders.
The piece I’m thinking off appeared to be made by fitting rows of
stones into onto series of paralell wires, with each row then having
a small flat wire pushed into the lined up grooves, that wire now
perpendicular to the first set of wires. that latest wire is then
welded to the first set of wires, and a new row of stones pushed up
onto it, another wire added, and also welded. The end result is a
grid of wires, with one direction being only support and structure,
while the other direction is the flat wires actually in the grooves
in the stones. I’ve only seen one piece done this way, so it may not
be common. But it certainly worked. The repair I did on that piece
was due to it’s being badly bent out of shape by accident, and none
of the stones had loosened or come out, either in the accident or
during my repair work to straighten it and fix the breaks that had
occured.

At the other end of the spectrum I’ve seen so-called invisible
setting clearly done as “cast in place” work. Looked good in photos,
but I wouldn’t trust it much further than that.

Peter

Hi Leonid,

I have put up some test pictures showing how I have set some
diamonds in 18ct gold in this manner.

Check out http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/96

Hope this help you to visualize the technique.

Cheers, Hans