Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

GF’s hand forged E ring - wonky or is it me?

A

alltheseices

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 24, 2024
Messages
13
Hi All, I had this engagement ring made for my girlfriend by a well known jeweler in NYC. My expectation going in was that there could be some minor asymmetries, imperfections, etc. because it is hand forged. My feeling with the finished product is that it’s a little sloppy, namely the area around the OEC’s (you’ll see what I’m talking about if you zoom in). Which is surprising to me given the jewelers reputation and what I understand to be a fairly straightforward design, and one well suited for hand forging. I’m hoping you all can give me some objective input one way or the other. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. I want the ring to be as good as it can be while still being hand forged.image3.jpegimage3.jpegimage0.jpegimage3.jpegimage2.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image2.jpeg
    image2.jpeg
    205 KB · Views: 38
Yes, sorry about that. This is obviously just one side of the ring but it is representative of the issues that the other side has as well.IMG_1115.jpegIMG_1115.jpeg
 
IMO and without knowing any other information
Any guess I could give regarding expectations would wholly depend on also seeing macro photos of similar design/construction of your vendors previous work.
 
That is fair. If the consensus ends up being that the ring is fine and my expectations are off then I would rather not call this jeweler out unfairly. If the consensus is wonky then I will gladly point you to other rings by this person on PS
 
I don't see what you are referring to and I am pretty critical. I was prepared to see some asymmetry and then not know whether to attribute it to the iPhone wide-angle effect where there can be a lot of distortion if one side of the ring is even slightly closer to the teeny-tiny lens.

Everything that I have that is hand-forged has some non-uniformity somewhere. I would not tolerate a center stone that's askew, etc., but a little L/R asymmetry is OK by me if it is otherwise carefully executed.

Pretty gem and pretty ring. I think the actual setting of the center stone could be improved post hoc. The setter completes the bezel and that is often different from the craftsperson who makes the ring. I might prefer a little less intrusion/wrap-around onto the crown and a slightly cleaner bezel -- maybe with crisp brightwork right at the edge. Then again, this may have been done intentionally (i.e., a little generous with the metal) to protect the stone since emerald is fragile for daily wear.
 
What exactly are the issues? Can you describe them? You said "sloppy" but I'm not sure what to look for.

Two things to keep in mind:
1. Very few jewellers aim for macro/zoom-clean work
2. Those that do, you'll pay handsomely for it.


Rule of thumb: If you paid under say $4-5k for this mount - not including any stones - macro/zoom-clean work should be off the table in terms of expectations.
 
How symmetrical are your three stones?

I think plenty of setters would have some concessions to make in the overall piece - if any of those stones aren’t symmetrical.

Putting an eggish shape round in a square box, you aren’t going to have bilaterally symmetrical bead set prongs.


If you decide to talk to your vendor - the words sloppy and wonky probably shouldn’t be used to describe their handiwork.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to the workmanship but the design gives me pause. Sort of designed by a committee, the separate elements don't flow..
 
LilAlex said:
I don't see what you are referring to and I am pretty critical. I was prepared to see some asymmetry and then not know whether to attribute it to the iPhone wide-angle effect where there can be a lot of distortion if one side of the ring is even slightly closer to the teeny-tiny lens.

Everything that I have that is hand-forged has some non-uniformity somewhere. I would not tolerate a center stone that's askew, etc., but a little L/R asymmetry is OK by me if it is otherwise carefully executed.

Pretty gem and pretty ring. I think the actual setting of the center stone could be improved post hoc. The setter completes the bezel and that is often different from the craftsperson who makes the ring. I might prefer a little less intrusion/wrap-around onto the crown and a slightly cleaner bezel -- maybe with crisp brightwork right at the edge. Then again, this may have been done intentionally (i.e., a little generous with the metal) to protect the stone since emerald is fragile for daily wear.
Click to expand...
“…a little L/R asymmetry is OK…” - I appreciate you sharing this. I, like you, am pretty critical. But unlike you, I have close to zero experience with jewelry, so this is actually quite helpful in terms of what is acceptable.

“Pretty gem and pretty ring.” - Thank you! I’m very pleased with the stone (and I am trying so hard to be happy with the execution lol). And thank you for the thoughts re the bezel, I will definitely keep those things in mind after the ring is on her finger.
 
I think it is a lovely ring.
 
I am not immediately seeing what is “off”.

How does it look to your eyes? As Yssie said, macro pictures is not the way to go.
 
From the zoomed in pictures, the bead-setting of the side stones does look asymmetric but it could also be that the side stones aren’t quite the right size for the overall setting so the prongs aren’t well proportioned in zoom to look good at a distance.
Is this design something your fiancée has mentioned she’d like?
The elongated octagon next to the square-bezelled beadset round OEC, barset baguettes looks a little clunky but I can’t work out what’s off about the proportions. It may be the photography tho. Since you have it in hand, does it look proportional to you?
 
Dreamer_D said:
I am not immediately seeing what is “off”.

How does it look to your eyes? As Yssie said, macro pictures is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

Same here in that I cannot see the alleged issues.

DK :confused:
 
Doesn't look sloppy to me. The prongs could *perhaps* be slightly more symmetrical, but your OEC isn't perfectly round, so that makes it a tough/impossible ask.

Personally, I like it. It's a terrific bezel on your center stone and I like the side boxes arrangement. And the baguettes are beautifully set. You have to love it, of course, but I'd call it a win!
 
yssie said:
What exactly are the issues? Can you describe them? You said "sloppy" but I'm not sure what to look for.

Two things to keep in mind:
1. Very few jewellers aim for macro/zoom-clean work
2. Those that do, you'll pay handsomely for it.


Rule of thumb: If you paid under say $4-5k for this mount - not including any stones - macro/zoom-clean work should be off the table in terms of expectations.
Click to expand...

The issues as I see them:

1) looking straight down at the ring, the metal surrounding the OEC’s is not square. It is also a different size and shape from one side of the ring to the other
2) the “hole” cut out that the stone sits in is not square
3) the prongs are not squared up on either side of the ring, but it’s significantly noticeable on the one side

I greatly appreciate the insight into macro/zoom-clean work. If I had been asked if I wanted that prior to having the ring made I would have said No, but maybe that is worth looking into. Are there any jeweler’s you can recommend who do this level of work hand forged?
 
Rfisher said:
How symmetrical are your three stones?

I think plenty of setters would have some concessions to make in the overall piece - if any of those stones aren’t symmetrical.

Putting an eggish shape round in a square box, you aren’t going to have bilaterally symmetrical bead set prongs.


If you decide to talk to your vendor - the words sloppy and wonky probably shouldn’t be used to describe their handiwork.
Click to expand...

“…the words sloppy and wonky probably shouldn’t be used to describe their handiwork.” - This is sage advice. I have been very careful not to insult the jeweler as I do respect their skill and the work I have seen.

The emerald is symmetrical and the OEC’s are round to my eye, although I can clearly tell at a glance they are not the same size as one another (this also bugged me).
 
Ibrakeforpossums said:
I can't speak to the workmanship but the design gives me pause. Sort of designed by a committee, the separate elements don't flow..
Click to expand...

Right, that is exactly it. Bezel - awesome. Baguettes - awesome. Shank - awesome. OEC’s - I don’t know what happened there.
 
Dreamer_D said:
I am not immediately seeing what is “off”.

How does it look to your eyes? As Yssie said, macro pictures is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

Would a video be more helpful vs zoomed in pictures? To my eyes, it is easy to see the ring is noticeably different from one side to the other at a normal viewing distance when I turn the ring in my hand.
 
foxinsox said:
From the zoomed in pictures, the bead-setting of the side stones does look asymmetric but it could also be that the side stones aren’t quite the right size for the overall setting so the prongs aren’t well proportioned in zoom to look good at a distance.
Is this design something your fiancée has mentioned she’d like?
The elongated octagon next to the square-bezelled beadset round OEC, barset baguettes looks a little clunky but I can’t work out what’s off about the proportions. It may be the photography tho. Since you have it in hand, does it look proportional to you?
Click to expand...

Regarding the design, yes.

Regarding the proportions, that is an interesting insight. When the jeweler and I were initially discussing the ring we talked about smaller OEC’s but when I received the ring it had the larger ones that you see. I think that could very well be part of what is throwing it off.
 
mrs-b said:
Doesn't look sloppy to me. The prongs could *perhaps* be slightly more symmetrical, but your OEC isn't perfectly round, so that makes it a tough/impossible ask.

Personally, I like it. It's a terrific bezel on your center stone and I like the side boxes arrangement. And the baguettes are beautifully set. You have to love it, of course, but I'd call it a win!
Click to expand...

Thank you, I really appreciate the insight regarding the OEC and I too like the overall look :)
 
IMG_3963.jpegIMG_3962.jpegIMG_3955.jpegIMG_3963.jpeg
 
alltheseices said:
The issues as I see them:

1) looking straight down at the ring, the metal surrounding the OEC’s is not square. It is also a different size and shape from one side of the ring to the other
2) the “hole” cut out that the stone sits in is not square
3) the prongs are not squared up on either side of the ring, but it’s significantly noticeable on the one side

I greatly appreciate the insight into macro/zoom-clean work. If I had been asked if I wanted that prior to having the ring made I would have said No, but maybe that is worth looking into. Are there any jeweler’s you can recommend who do this level of work hand forged?
Click to expand...

Why do you want hand forged? Let's start there.
 
I love that you asked that question :) I work in an industry where there are exceptionally few people who still have the knowledge and skills to do very fine work, so from a philosophical standpoint I like the idea of hand forged. I like that the finished product is stronger. And as a marriage metaphor I like the idea of choosing something stronger and more durable but perhaps less perfect in appearance, vs something that is more perfect looking but fundamentally less likely to last.
 
So from a real world perspective - the practical difference in strength between forged and cast metal is analogous to deciding whether to buy a mack anthem or a mack granite for your weekly Costco run. There are differences between them, for sure, but those differences have absolutely no impact on you in terms of longevity, wear and tear, or maintenance needs.

Some designs do benefit more from one method of manufacture over the other - in those cases there arguments to be made (on both sides) for aesthetics and/vs. durability. But for your design, the strength consideration is really a zippo differential.

Pieces that are cast in several parts and assembled (by a good jeweller!) have the advantages of both precision construction and hand-loved finish.

Now if method of construction is important to you for emotional or sentimental reasons, which you said is part of it, that is definitely very valid and very relevant! I could see someone like Canera doing well with a linear and angular design like this.
 
You’re right. It’s not symmetrical. It’s not perfect stylistically (bezel of green stone quite heavy, for example, imo). Square shapes where diamonds are nestled are a bit thick and have asymmetries, as do prongs.

Did the designer execute this design or did someone else? I’ve seen this happen on PS before, where a ring from a hand forger/designer was done by someone who works for them. IMO, signs of “stylistic finishing” are absent.

What were you promised? Was there a drawing? Were you offered miligrain, etc. ? The stone and antique diamonds are gorgeous. Metalwork seems heavy and basic (versus sophisticated) for this type of Edwardian/Deco style ring that is intended to be an heirloom.

IMO like Yssie says above, this style of ring could likely be done in a partially or fully cast manner, and that might allow for a more delicate structure and perfect symmetry. Hand forging not absolutely necessary, but I do like the meaning it represents that you articulated.

—————————————————
Here’s a link to hand forger Gary Roe who I believe “finishes” well.
Check out his work. He’s able to produce “finely” even when he hand forges, for example very delicate bezels like this.

——————————————————-
This is Leon Mege. His symmetry is excellent, prongs excellent and finished in a consistent way, bezels are delicate. Prongs holding the diamonds on the cathedral sides are almost invisible, nestled into a delicate frame.

 
Last edited:
Yes those are fine examples of well crafted rings, regardless of fabrication method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top