Hello,
I had a couple of thoughts…
- your picture shows a stone that has been ground down/ polished “flush” with the bezel setting. (or, it is enamel…?)
is this the look you desire?
If so, I am thinking that the sides of the stone are chamfered/ beveled at an inward angle, with the top “face” of the stone being smaller than the bottom of the stone, and the bezel is hammered at a downward angle. This would move the metal downward/ inward to “trap” the stone in place.
then, the whole top of the ring (bezel and stone) are ground/ polished flat flush.
since the stone is chamfered/ beveled and the sides, this will be enough to trap the stone, and no metal needs to "roll over the top of the stone.
the difference between top and bottom of the stone can be as little as 1 mm…as long as the bottom is bigger, it will not come out. In reality, in terms of holding a stone in place, as long as say 3 points make contact, it should stay in place…
"
so, with that said perhaps your stone could be 8x8mm along the top, and 10x10
mm along the bottom? I would suggest to soften all edges so they do not chip in setting…?
as far as the height of the stone goes, I would take your desired overall ring height, at top, and minus a minimum of about 1.0-1.5mm for “stone above finger” (the open part under the stone…the “hollowed out part”…
the ring in the photo does not look that tall…
i would venture to say that if you have looked at your current rings and feel that 1.75mm wide bezel is too thick, then perhaps .80mm=1.0mm would work for you…it will get wider as it is hammered down/ spread…
as a point of reference, note that fine silver (soft) bezel wire is extremely thin, and is commonly offered in thicknesses of .25mm, .33mm, .41mm, .51mm.
hope this help you think it all through…
Julie