Is this engagement ring band too thin?

[belgian_mussels]

Hi All,

I hope you are well. I have recently bought an engagement ring from a Sydney based jeweller. Jeweller has 35 years of making custom jewellery as well as for retailers.

We have asked for a 2mm shank. But the jeweller made it 1.7mm wide ring and 2mm in thickness. Material = 18k white gold. Stone: 1.7ct.

Attached are some images. When I first gotten the ring, I thought the band is very skinny and potentially the prong head may fall off from the ring. But the jeweller said it will not as it has a pin welded to the ring.

Is this a well made ring such that it should not break? Ps: I don’t wear it when doing strenuous activities. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.

 

[dk168]

If the ring was made to order based on your specific design specifications, and the jeweller changed the spec without consulting you; if that had happened to me, I would not accept the ring.

Don't care how much experience the jeweller might have, and I am not doubting his craftmanship.

However, unbeknown to me, the ring was not made to my design specifications, therefore, I believe I am not being unreasonable to reject it and request for a remake.

Were you asked to approve a CAD/drawing of some sort?

Did you specify the width of the band in writing?

If you are happy with it, then keep; otherwise reject and request for a remake.

Don't let him fob you off - only you can decide if you are happy with it. If you had asked for a 2mm band in writing and he made it a 1.7mm, then he was in the wrong, not you!

All IMHO.

DK

 

[belgian_mussels]

Many thanks DK. You are right.

There is a CAD that I approved. Attached here. We did ask for 2mm ring but didn’t specify where. The cad drawing showed 1.8mm width and 2mm thick which is acceptable to us. But the valuer measured it, it was 1.7mm width and thickness is 2mm.

The difference is 0.01mm. 1.7mm is too close to minimum of 1.6mm of a safe band from what I understand.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Many thanks DK. You are right.

There is a CAD that I approved. Attached here. We did ask for 2mm ring but didn’t specify where. The cad drawing showed 1.8mm width and 2mm thick which is acceptable to us. But the valuer measured it, it was 1.7mm width and thickness is 2mm.

The difference is 0.01mm. 1.7mm is too close to minimum of 1.6mm of a safe band from what I understand.

good luck and let us know how you get on
i myself prefer a wider band

and congradulations on your engagment

 

[belgian_mussels]

good luck and let us know how you get on
i myself prefer a wider band

and congradulations on your engagment

Many thanks Daisys and Diamonds. I have tried asking the jeweller to widen the shank including paying extra. He said that is not necessary to widen.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Many thanks Daisys and Diamonds. I have tried asking the jeweller to widen the shank including paying extra. He said that is not necessary to widen.

HHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Because the band is very high I don't see a problem.
18K is harder to bend than platinum.
And a pin under the setting is a standard approach.
I also like the clearance under the setting - too many times I see the diamond resting on the prongs and it becomes impossible to clean the gunk out between diamond and prongs.

 

[belgian_mussels]

Many thanks Garry. That’s great to know. I have also bought the Holloway Cut Adviser to check out this stone.

 

[emmy12]

There is a CAD that I approved. Attached here. We did ask for 2mm ring but didn’t specify where. The cad drawing showed 1.8mm width and 2mm thick which is acceptable to us. But the valuer measured it, it was 1.7mm width and thickness is 2mm

Reading the CAD you approved I don't think you would have much grounds to request a remake. They met the specifications to a reasonable level (±0.1mm) that were specified in the CAD. Theh increased the height of the shank under the peg head as well.

Unfortunately if it was a width of 2mm that you wanted, then that wasn't correctly communicated according to what is on your approved CAD.

 

[MissGotRocks]

It looks like a fairly sturdy setting to me. Even though the width is less than 2 mm, the height gives the overall band some heft. It doesn’t seem that he is willing to remake the ring and you approved the CAD so it probably is what it is at this point. Insure the ring and see how it wears; if there is any bending of the shank, then you might have some recourse with him.

 

[ringo865]

It will be so much stronger because you do not have pave on the shank. The head to shank looks pretty integrated, meaning more metal than just a peg is attaching them together.

I think it is beautiful. Wear in health and happiness. Congrats!

 

[Ionysis]

The extra depth of the shank I think makes it pretty sturdy. It’s not “delicate” and I think will be robust enough - a bit like a knife edge. This should sit beautifully with a wedding band - and a diamond eternity.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A CAD showing 1.8 will have casting shrinkage as the wax and the gold cool.
Then metal is removed while emerying and polishing. So 1.8 to 1.7mm is a good outcome.

 

[belgian_mussels]

Many thanks Garry H, Ionysis, Emmy12, MissGotRocks, Ringo865.

Wasn’t aware of casting shrinkage. So I have learnt something new.

Overall the band is indeed quite sturdy. Thanks so much everyone.