Are rings too thin these days?

[NewEnglandLady]

I honestly wish I'd done more research on the risks of thinner settings before DH bought my e-ring. I have LARGE hands, so I didn't want anything too delicate. I did, however, fall in love with a unique setting and parts of it were very thin.

I think that when most of us think about the durability of a thin setting, we think of it becoming out-of-round. This did happen with my ~2mm sapphire spacer (shown below), which, for me, isn't a dealbreaker. My spacer was made in the '20's, so I expected it to have some wear an tear.

But, my e-ring is a different story. It came from a high-end B&M here in Boston called Shreve, Crump and Low. When shopping, I stated that I wanted a very durable setting since I'm pretty active (and clumsy, to boot). I wanted a very low setting that could handle wear and tear. A solitaire was previously my first choice.

The head of my ring is always twisting. Anytime I hit my ring against anything, it twists slightly. I'm very sentimental about my e-ring and know that if the metal keeps twisting, eventually it will break. I wear my ring MAYBE once a month at most. I just pulled it out of its box to take a quick picture. You can see how it's slightly twisted...I can bend it back in place and I guarantee that next time I wear it, this will happen again.

 

[kenny]

Wow, so sorry to read about all of these rings and see the pics.
Usually we only post about our good news here.

Maybe PS needs a new forum, SMTBB, Show Me The Bent Bling.

 

[suchende]

Possibly sort of related, I once shut my hand in the drawer of a wonky antique dresser while wearing a 1.5 mm shanked sterling silver ring and the thing folded on my finger. Luckily, I was able to get it off my hand without any damage to my hand by thinking fast and using the drawer to force it back into round. You hear from time to time about men getting their ring fingers caught in machinery, but if the ring is too flimsy I could see this being a concern. Or maybe my incident was a freak accident.

 

[Jennifer W]

Possibly sort of related, I once shut my hand in the drawer of a wonky antique dresser while wearing a 1.5 mm shanked sterling silver ring and the thing folded on my finger. Luckily, I was able to get it off my hand without any damage to my hand by thinking fast and using the drawer to force it back into round. You hear from time to time about men getting their ring fingers caught in machinery, but if the ring is too flimsy I could see this being a concern. Or maybe my incident was a freak accident.

I did something similar to a gold band - my late grandfather's wedding ring. He wore it every day for over 60 years with little more than surface scratching, and he was a coal miner. Not exactly gentle on the hands, I would think. It was fairly thick and wide, but it still crushed when the right force was applied in the right direction.

I managed to squash it between a wall and a washing machine during a house move, so that it folded, as you describe. It does happen to even the most robust rings, unfortunately.

 

[suchende]

Thanks for sharing. I will try to be more conscientious about what I am doing when I am wearing my jewelry, both to protect myself and my pieces. They just become part of you, it's easy to forget.

 

[Jennifer W]

Yes, bent bling is awful, but damaged hands are a worse thought! I suppose anything dangling from or encircling any part of your body needs to be treated with a little caution!

 

[baby monster]

Fascinating thread. I've been reading posts here for couple of years now and have not come across such an in-depth discussion of metalwork.

I have a question about shared-prong bands, which many PSers love and have. I understand that a shared-prong band design is less sturdy than a bezel or channel set one, but what metal is a better choice for a shared-prong ring - platinum, 14k or 18k? I currently have a plat eternity shared prong with 7 pointers and thinking of upgrading it to 12-15 pointers. Should I stick with plat or change to a different metal given larger stones? I should add that I have been wearing my ring daily for 3 years now and it still looks new with no damage whatsover to prongs.

 

[yssie]

Fascinating thread. I've been reading posts here for couple of years now and have not come across such an in-depth discussion of metalwork.

I have a question about shared-prong bands, which many PSers love and have. I understand that a shared-prong band design is less sturdy than a bezel or channel set one, but what metal is a better choice for a shared-prong ring - platinum, 14k or 18k? I currently have a plat eternity shared prong with 7 pointers and thinking of upgrading it to 12-15 pointers. Should I stick with plat or change to a different metal given larger stones? I should add that I have been wearing my ring daily for 3 years now and it still looks new with no damage whatsover to prongs.

plat is the metal of choice for prongs - it has low elasticity, meaning that if you bend it slightly it will stay bent, vs. alloyed gold that is slightly bent will snap back into place. This is usually a good thing for prongs because if you bang the head against the doorway, the prongs will simply bend and continue to cradle the stone, rather than possibly snap off (the alloys in gold make it brittle - 14k moreso than 18k.)

But, perhaps just for the sake of nitpicking, for a shared-prong eternity... the prongs are so small and so tight to the stones. And - if the shank is twisted or bent, the prongs will come out of alignment, potentially no longer holding all those stones in place. So given no other considerations I might err toward gold for a standalone shared-prong eternity as in this case damage directly to those tiny prongs is more unlikely, and it seems beneficial for this sort of ring to 'unbend' back into its original shape when it is torqued out-of-round or out-of-plane, since stone safety depends on exacting prong alignment which depends on shank shape.

Ultimately - I would go with whatever metal the ring(s) you will wear it next to are, and not worry about it

 

[LD]

I once asked a jeweller (friend of mine) to make a ring for me - very thin band, shared prongs, etc. He refused because he said that the ring wouldn't be durable, the diamonds would be too exposed, would potentially be damaged and the shank was too thin to withstand anything other than occasional wear. I eventually bought the ring from somewhere else and guess what, he was right! Thankfully, I haven't damaged it because I'm very careful with my rings but accidents do happen. So instead of wearing it lots, I only wear it occasionally.

I bought this with the full knowledge of the problems that may occur. If anything does happen, I most certainly wouldn't try to claim against anybody because I knew the risks up front - albeit from a different vendor.

Common sense has to apply. In an ideal world, if a Vendor makes, or is worried that he/she is being asked to make, a ring that won't stand the test of time then it's his/her duty to mention it. Then it should be up to the buyer to either go ahead with full knowledge knowing he/she can't claim or not have the piece made or modify it.

 

[princesss]

Great thread, very informative. Thanks for starting it, Kenny!

 

[Michael_E]

I understand that a shared-prong band design is less sturdy than a bezel or channel set one, but what metal is a better choice for a shared-prong ring - platinum, 14k or 18k?

As always, it just depends. White gold alloys which use nickel can exhibit "stress corrosion cracking" if the prong seats are finished correctly or the metal is treated improperly. See this article for further info: http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/articles/2004/jun04/0604pb2.html This sort of cracking sounds scary, but is very rare in custom pieces. It is also more of a problem with people who use strong oxidizers in their work or play, (things like chlorine or bromine for example). Platinum and as far as I know, palladium do not have this potential problem, so make better settings when using short prongs or beads. Platinum doesn't work very well for long prongs, since it does bend easier.

I currently have a plat eternity shared prong with 7 pointers and thinking of upgrading it to 12-15 pointers. Should I stick with plat or change to a different metal given larger stones? I should add that I have been wearing my ring daily for 3 years now and it still looks new with no damage whatsover to prongs.

I would stick with platinum if the cost is acceptable. Shared prong bands typically have short, thick prongs and platinum is perfect for these types of rings.

 

[Harriet]

Yes, bent bling is awful, but damaged hands are a worse thought! I suppose anything dangling from or encircling any part of your body needs to be treated with a little caution!

I'm sorry about your grandfather's ring, but am glad that your appendages are intact.

 

[maria121]

I'd like to know what you guys think about the Harry Winston micropave ring since that is one of their most popular settings. Are their rings made well?

 

[betty6333]

Thanks for starting this thread! I enjoyed reading the responses.

I wanted to say how I decide if a ring is going to be sturdy enough FOR ME ... when I am looking at a setting , if I want to wear it on a daily basis, the setting MUST weigh at least 4 grams of 14 kt or 5 grams of 18 or plat.
If the band is 2 mm wide it MUST be very deep to get to that weight, and I have found that they are less likely to bend or have problems when they have enough gold or plat in the setting.

I am just a wearer, so I dont know about being a sales person, but I do know that for me, I mostly wear heavy / thick rings. When we bought even our first E-ring, I knew I wanted it to be heavy enough to withstand a LOT of wear and tear. I wear a size 9 ring and will not wear any ring that weighs less than 4 grams of 14kt gold on a daily basis. I am just too rough with them.

When I had my custom ring done last year I was adamant that the ring be heavy enough for me to wear every day, and the stones set well enough that it could withstand getting hit around a bit! It weighs a little over 12 grams of 14 kt and has been a good fit for my lifestyle. I have a "smaller" ering that I will wear from time to time that is over 6 grams, but even my channel set rings have to be over 4 grams so they do not show wear too quickly! when I wear the channels with my custom ring, they weigh over 18 grams, and I never worry about them bending or getting into trouble. ( of course you have to watch out with the prongs LOL )

I do have rings that weigh 2 and 3 grams, but I do NOT wear them often, because I know it will just take the ring snagging on one corner and me pulling my hand without knowing it was caught on the corner for the band to be bent to the point it will ruin it ....

So take it for what it is worth... it is just my experience, but as a rule for me, I do not wear rings that weigh less than 4 grams... I am just too hard on them !

 

[monarch64]

Great thread, very informative. Thanks for starting it, Kenny!

Ditto, ditto, ditto. (Is that a "thritto?") Anyway, I also wanted to thank you for this thread. Very timely, and very informative.

My last solitaire was a 2mm platinum job with no sidestones. It held up extremely well and I was very pleased with it. I thought about going thinner but decided I'm just not a "thinner" kinda girl.

My current solitaire is 14k WG and FAT compared to today's PS standards. I kind of hated it when I was proposed to but honestly, the jeweler my fiance used knew what he was doing. I have lovely double prongs supporting my oval diamond, and a tapered (but thick) shank supporting all of it. I am kind of hard on jewelry (I work with my hands a lot and I don't like being without my e-ring/wedding band) so I'd really rather have durability over daintiness, plus my hands are larger (I wear a 6.5 to 7 on my left ring finger) and a very teensy dainty setting would not look the same on me as it would on someone with a smaller size finger. Also...I'm 5'10" and again, I can wear a more substantial setting!

That said, I LOVE seeing beautiful thin settings. LOVE. I've seen so many artistic pieces here on PS that make my heart go pitter-patter! I think if you're going to go that route, you just have to understand that you cannot wear those as an everyday piece. Wear your skinny rings to cocktail parties or major events, but don't wear them when you're taking the kids to the park or whatever if you expect them to last until your next upgrade.

Additionally, I have always loved bulkier pieces of jewelry. I feel like the trend towards smaller/skinnier/daintier pieces in the past 10 years HAS been really detrimental to the integrity of settings and what gives, ya know? Is it something to do with the price of metals? I suppose. Does anyone remember when gold/platinum was SUPPOSED to feel heavy and large, bulky pieces were sought after??? Maybe it's just me, but I still love really substantial pieces.

 

[risingsun]

When I had my diamond reset into a halo, the question of durability was raised with my jeweler. In fact, they raised it with me. I wear my rings every day. I am careful with them, but I don't want to keep them in a safe and wear them on special occasions. The way the halo is designed, it would be difficult to imagine it twisting or breaking. One of the design features is the gallery and how the halo is integrated into the ring. The shank is slightly wider than some and has a knife edge design. Migrain at the base, a row of micropave, milgrain on the top of the knife edge, a row of micropave, and milgrain at the base. I thought I would be choosing a Tacori. When I tried the settings on, they felt very light and delicate. They were beautiful, but I didn't think they would work for me for daily use. My pave wedding band is very thin. It was custom made to fit around my halo. It's not supporting a large stone and so far, so good. I've had this set for 18 months and have had no durability problems. My jeweler steered me away from another design that had a very thin shank and the reverse pyramid head. One of my friends calls my ring a "practical" halo. It gives me the look I want, without the worry. OTOH, I have an emerald set in a split shank halo. It is very thin. I only where for special occasions.

Since reading this thread, I have become more aware of my hand movements. I have noticed that opening jars, medications, bottled water, etc. causes a twisting motion on my left hand. I can see how such a repetitive motion could affect a very thin ring. I use more force than I thought I did. I don't intend to baby my rings, but I do plan to be more aware of how I use my hands and the potential effect on my rings.

Great topic!

 

[monarch64]

Yeah--RS, your post rings true!

For me...delicate is beautiful but not realistic.

My mother never had an engagement ring, but to this day wears a band of 18k YG that must be somewhere around 10mm and is absolutely freakin' gorgeous. I love her ring and if it actually fit me I would try to steal it right off her fabulous little finger. I would love the same thing for myself in WG or Plat. I don't even care about diamonds...I was proposed to with a gorgeous oval stone and I really love it, but I'm all about finding the right band.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

This thread is fantastic, though it pains me to see so many beautiful rings that I love suffer these structural issues. Thanks so much for starting it, Kenny.

As for me, my ring has a 2mm (or slightly wider) shank and it's 2mm thick through most of the shank. With the 2 individual metal halos integrated into the shank, it feels pretty sturdy to me. I placed it upside down on it's head, just to make sure I'm not imagining that it's still nice and straight, but 5 years of daily wear later, the ring is holding up quite well. DH had a mind toward structural integrity when designing it, so although I had stressed "as thin as possible", I also requested that this be an heirloom piece I could pass onto children.

I must say that I don't expect most of my RHR collection to stand the test of time, with the exception of a few shanks that have 4mm and 5mm thick shanks. But, then, none of those rings are my engagement ring and are not made or expected to survive daily wear.

 

[baby monster]

Ultimately - I would go with whatever metal the ring(s) you will wear it next to are, and not worry about it

Thanks for the info. I usually wear it by itself. Occasionally I stack other rings with it - WG channel set ruby band, stainless spacer or another plat band. There have been thread discussing wearing WG and plat next to each other but I have never seen stainless mentioned. What's the potential effect of wearing stanless next to plat and WG?

 

[baby monster]

I would stick with platinum if the cost is acceptable. Shared prong bands typically have short, thick prongs and platinum is perfect for these types of rings.

Thanks for the info. Cost is always an issue but it's cheaper to pay for plat rather than replace a lost stone.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Have only read the first page, so forgive me if this is a repeat of what someone else stated.

I think it is the jewelers responsibility to tell the customer when a ring is so thin it is at risk. I remember when Lynn B had her Grace setting made (which I now have), Brian would not go below 2mm for the cast. When I spoke with him, he showed me the ring with the very thin shank on the head, and he said he could only do that in that one area, and not the whole ring. I have been wearing that ring for almost a year and it has held up great to screaming toddlers. Since I work with my hands, I got my band from Leon, I requested 2.2 mm (I am guessing it is closer to 2) and had a bead set pave so that the sides would be protected. So far so good, but I have only been wearing that for 3 months.

I remember when I had my sapphire set and I told the jeweler I wanted the prongs as thin as possible without compromising the structure and durability of the ring. Well, I guess she made the benchman thin it even though he advised against it. When it fell out of the setting a year later, and I found this out, they thickened the prongs for free as they told me that was their fault for not talking it over with me first. They said it would have been different if I knew the jewelers recs and insisted on it anyways.

I personally think the right way to handle it is to either warn the costumer of the risks, and if they insist document it and make the ring, or refuse to make the ring.

 

[Victor Canera]

Ok, topic that I'm pretty familiar with...
The thinness becomes an issue depending on whether there is pave or not on a shank.
So for example a 1.5mm round shank that doesn't have pave will be more structurally sound than one that doesn't. There are even variances in the type of pave. Bright cut pave weakens the shank less than other types like u-cut, v-cut, craponia otherwise known as french pave. French pave leaves the sides of the stones exposed. You're actually creating a groove in the metal as opposed to just a hole with "bright cut". If a ring is to be set with French pave, you might want to think about having the stones a little bit smaller because the bigger the stone, the bigger the groove has to be on the shank. The grooves undermine the structural strength of the ring. In my opinion some of these super thin round shanks with french pave, look good, but once you wear them for a year or so, you're most likely going to encounter problems. To add to the complexity, shapes of the shanks also affect the durability. So, I'd just advise the consumer to think of the durability as much as the beauty of a ring when pulling the trigger.

 

[decodelighted]

I hears ya Kens. The only thing I would add to that is half the fault being the wearer of the ring for asking for a thin band. I mean, until just like 3 seconds ago, I never even knew it was an issue to be brought up. In my mind, I see myself looking for a ring and seeing one in a photo or on the vendors website that's very very thin. It's there, right? So why/how would I even know to question it? I'm just looking at it thinking it's gorgeous and just my style, never knowing that durability could be an issue. I believe it is way more than half the vendor's responsibility to make sure the client is aware of the issues.

Should Ferrari dealers have to tell people that their cars are way more likely to get them killed? Because of the temptation to GO FAST. Or that red cars are more likely to get pulled over by cops. Or that grey cars are more likely to be hit by other drivers.

I SAY NO. BUYER beware. It is the BUYER's job to be informed about the product they are spending thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars on.

When regular old people started wanting Red Carpet Rings for everyday wear -- vendors responded. NO ONE ever said it was a good idea. Just as motorcycles aren't good ideas ... but people still make them. Death traps. Pretty, shiny, death traps.

 

[decodelighted]

Beyond that, I think we as pricescopers may have been sleeping on the job by not being more vigilant in pointing these things out. I am glad Kenny started this thread. Something of a public service announcement not just for would-be buyers but also those of us who take it upon ourselves to advise them.

I must be on a different Pricescope then. Because I've heard PLENTY about the risks over the years. I've seen HUNDREDS of "mangled ring photos" and horror stories. Seen THOUSANDS of warnings to ring shoppers about the dangers of super, uber, mega thin bands being A BAD FREAKING IDEA. Folks who want what they want when they want it don't seem to want to listen to those stories ... they hear what they want and decide they can always blame the vendor if anything bad should happen. "What me worry?"

 

[suchende]

Beyond that, I think we as pricescopers may have been sleeping on the job by not being more vigilant in pointing these things out. I am glad Kenny started this thread. Something of a public service announcement not just for would-be buyers but also those of us who take it upon ourselves to advise them.

I must be on a different Pricescope then. Because I've heard PLENTY about the risks over the years. I've seen HUNDREDS of "mangled ring photos" and horror stories. Seen THOUSANDS of warnings to ring shoppers about the dangers of super, uber, mega thin bands being A BAD FREAKING IDEA. Folks who want what they want when they want it don't seem to want to listen to those stories ... they hear what they want and decide they can always blame the vendor if anything bad should happen. "What me worry?"

I hedged my language carefully and stand by it. I've heard it come up, but it's not among the top few things people mention when advising noobs, like "try to get an ASET" and "go view stones in person to see how color-sensitive you are." I think, for inexperienced buyers, this isn't obvious. People think of platinum being super strong and diamonds being super tough, and don't necessarily make the connection between fragile pieces and potential damage, which is something PS can help with.

Though I think your right that people are too quick to blame the vendor, and pretty much said so throughout both threads on the subject.

 

[mrssalvo]

Beyond that, I think we as pricescopers may have been sleeping on the job by not being more vigilant in pointing these things out. I am glad Kenny started this thread. Something of a public service announcement not just for would-be buyers but also those of us who take it upon ourselves to advise them.

I must be on a different Pricescope then. Because I've heard PLENTY about the risks over the years. I've seen HUNDREDS of "mangled ring photos" and horror stories. Seen THOUSANDS of warnings to ring shoppers about the dangers of super, uber, mega thin bands being A BAD FREAKING IDEA. Folks who want what they want when they want it don't seem to want to listen to those stories ... they hear what they want and decide they can always blame the vendor if anything bad should happen. "What me worry?"

yep, and I'm pretty sure I started half of those threads when trying to learn about the pros and cons of pave in my own quest for a new ring

I do think it's harder to "search" here since the system upgrade though making it more difficult to find all that info. However, I do think there are folks that do speak up when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[pancake]

I agree that the responsibility lies on both sides. Michael E has made a fantastic contribution to this thread - really illuminating! Re the buyer beware thing, I absolutely think this is correct - if a buyer does not comprehensively research such a large purchase (and most people would agree that most bling purchases are "large" relative to the buyer's resources) then they must take some of the fall if the performance of the item is not up to scratch. Only the buyer knows how he/she wears jewellery, and it is that person's responsibility to ask the appropriate questions. I would not buy a car without obsessively researching and asking questions - I think many others would feel the same way. Ditto a diamond ring.

Should the vendor not step up and adequately address these questions, then that's another matter entirely.

 

[frankiextah]

I agree that the responsibility lies on both sides. Michael E has made a fantastic contribution to this thread - really illuminating! Re the buyer beware thing, I absolutely think this is correct - if a buyer does not comprehensively research such a large purchase (and most people would agree that most bling purchases are "large" relative to the buyer's resources) then they must take some of the fall if the performance of the item is not up to scratch. Only the buyer knows how he/she wears jewellery, and it is that person's responsibility to ask the appropriate questions. I would not buy a car without obsessively researching and asking questions - I think many others would feel the same way. Ditto a diamond ring.

Should the vendor not step up and adequately address these questions, then that's another matter entirely.

i totally agree with this !

especially when commissioning a jeweler for a piece of jewelry - it's either giving full artistic reign to the jeweler or you just have to be in complete control of the details, in which the customer must research the hell out of and learn everything there is that he/she wants in the piece of jewelry. anything in between will end up disappointment one way or another.

through my extensive research on my mom's LM ring setting i was able to come up with a long list of questions including what "a jour" meant and if i wanted it or not, etc. i was able to address all my questions and make adequate decisions, and the end result of the ring was 100% to my wanting.

 

[CherryBlossom]

I agree that the responsibility lies on both sides. Michael E has made a fantastic contribution to this thread - really illuminating! Re the buyer beware thing, I absolutely think this is correct - if a buyer does not comprehensively research such a large purchase (and most people would agree that most bling purchases are "large" relative to the buyer's resources) then they must take some of the fall if the performance of the item is not up to scratch. Only the buyer knows how he/she wears jewellery, and it is that person's responsibility to ask the appropriate questions. I would not buy a car without obsessively researching and asking questions - I think many others would feel the same way. Ditto a diamond ring.

Should the vendor not step up and adequately address these questions, then that's another matter entirely.

i totally agree with this !

especially when commissioning a jeweler for a piece of jewelry - it's either giving full artistic reign to the jeweler or you just have to be in complete control of the details, in which the customer must research the hell out of and learn everything there is that he/she wants in the piece of jewelry. anything in between will end up disappointment one way or another.

through my extensive research on my mom's LM ring setting i was able to come up with a long list of questions including what "a jour" meant and if i wanted it or not, etc. i was able to address all my questions and make adequate decisions, and the end result of the ring was 100% to my wanting.

could you explain what "a jour" meant ? I remember reading your explanation, but some of the links that you had posted didn't work anymore. How important is this aspect to the structural integrity of the ring?

 

[yssie]

Another point of interest, and I think relevant to this thread - prongs.


I had a very interesting convo w/ Leon from WF (not Mege!) today regarding some small adjustments to my ring.

One of the things that came up was claw prongs. My prongs are pointy, but not velociraptor-y (to misuse Deco's terminology). I confess, I have always admired those velociraptor-y prongs, and asked if they could be shaved down... but Leon noted that the thinner they are the more likely they are to loosen slightly with time and wear, and the longer and pointier they are the more likely they are to catch on things as they loosen, and the thinner they are the more likely they are to bend when they catch on things.

Seems obvious, in hindsight, but it wasn't something that I thought of when I admired those needle-thin claw prongs I have to say - those few sentences totally cured me of my practical desire for velociraptory-y prongs. He's going to make them just a tad pointier for me.